Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND INDUSTRY

Small Engineering Firms Investment Scheme

Mr. Mark Robinson: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he is satisfied with the take-up and results of the second small engineering firms investment scheme.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. David Trippier): Yes, Sir. More than 6,100 applications for support were received, representing potential investment in new advanced capital equipment of almost £300 million.

Mr. Robinson: I congratulate my hon. Friend on that excellent reply. Can he confirm my impression that SEFIS is not limited to British firms and is open to other firms? If so, why is that so?

Mr. Trippier: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that compliment. Because of our international obligations we cannot make SEFIS a purely "Buy British" scheme. In any event, not all equipment is available from the United Kingdom. However, 60 per cent. of the orders were placed with British manufacturers, in the teeth of some very strong foreign competition.

Mr. Park: What representations has the Minister received from companies about the impact of the Budget proposals on their investment programmes?

Mr. Trippier: The CBI survey recently published says that the impact is very good indeed.

Mr. Richard Page: In view of the success of the first scheme and now the second one, and the high British content in the take-up, what plans does my hon. Friend have for introducing a Mk. 3 scheme?

Mr. Trippier: There is no intention of introducing a SEFIS 3 scheme, although in the recent Budget debate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced a similar scheme to SEFIS for the textile and footwear industries, which has been widely welcomed.

Regional Aid

Mr. Campbell-Savours: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received from the northern region on the level of regional aid.

The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Mr. Norman Lamont): I received a number of

such representations in response to the Government's White Paper on regional industrial development. I assure the hon. Gentleman that all representations received by 31 May will be given our fullest consideration before any final decisions are made on the future level of regional aid.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Is the Minister aware of the deep concern in Cumbria and the northern region over the possible loss of regional assistance, arising from the statement that he made? Will the hon. Gentleman give us an absolute assurance that the cost-per-job ceiling which the Government propose will not prevent regions such as mine from attracting capital-intensive industries, particularly as during the past 10 years the only two major employers to come to my constituency, Thames Board Mills and British Leyland, were capital-intensive ventures?

Mr. Lamont: The hon. Gentleman will know that when we are in the middle of reviewing the map I cannot, unfortunately, give any assurances to any area. However, we are all well aware of the high level of unemployment in the north. As regards capital-intensive industries, we are introducing a cost-per-job limit. Very sensibly, I think, we want regional aid to be more job-related, but we have also said that we shall use selective assistance, where necessary, to attract projects that we want.

Mr. Fallon: Has not the northern region been more illserved by the mis-allocation of resources than any other region? Does my hon. Friend agree that it is surprising to see the Opposition concentrating more on capital than on jobs?

Mr. Lamont: I agree with my hon. Friend. One would have thought that the object of regional policy was to reduce unemployment differences. One can do that only by attracting firms and industries that create jobs. The northern region has been far too dependent upon heavy, traditional manufacturing, which is often capital-intensive. The region has also lacked service industries, which we intend to encourage in our new policy.

Mr. Wrigglesworth: Will the Minister acknowledge that no matter whether capital-intensive or labor-intensive industries are brought to the northern region as a result of Government policy, that policy should take into account the gross discrepancies between unemployment in the north and in other parts of the country?
In the northern region we all understand the feelings of the midlands and other parts of the country about their high unemployment, but will the Minister acknowledge that unemployment in the northern region is still the highest in the country, and that in the county of Cleveland it is higher than in any other part of the United Kingdom?

Mr. Lamont: Unemployment is highest in the northern region—that is one of the factors that we have to take into account in drawing up the map — but we are consulting precisely on what weight should be given to unemployment as opposed to other factors. The hon. Gentleman should notice and acknowledge that many parts of the west midlands have very high unemployment compared with some of the assisted areas.

Mr. Ward: Will my hon. Friend remember that some of us view all regional aid with considerable scepticism, not least because it has distorted management decisions — [Interruption] — unlike some Labour Members, I speak with experience in industry — and helped to


preserve just those restrictive practices which have caused unemployment in many of the areas which are receiving regional aid funds?

Mr. Lamont: Undoubtedly the most important thing for the regions is to get national economic policy right, as we are doing. In view of what my hon. Friend has said, I am sure he will welcome the fact that we have reduced regional aid in real terms. I am sure that he will also welcome the fact that the measures that we are proposing will greatly lessen the amount of mere job shuffling around the country, which does no good to anyone.

Mr. Dormand: Is the Minister aware that one of the most significant contributions that could be made to aid the northern region would be for the Prime Minister to stop butchering the coal industry? Will the Minister, the Secretary of State for Energy and the Prime Minister take note of the announcement today of the large order that is being placed for Durham coal—the first for 10 years— by an American company? Does that not indicate that others have confidence in our coal industry, when the Government do not? When will the Minister help the miners?

Mr. Lamont: The Government have repeatedly made it clear that they think there is a tremendous future for the coal industry. I do not know how the hon. Gentleman can talk about butchering when we have poured money into the industry, unless he thinks that we can butcher with pound notes.

Mr. Williams: Is not a measure of the disastrous effect of the Government's policy on the north the fact that it would need more than 200 Nissan stage 1 developments just to replace the jobs that have been destroyed since the Government came to office? Is not the reality that there is no hope of replacing the lost 100,000 jobs when the Government, in their changed regional policy, are to take £180 million in regional development grants away from the north in the next five years? Does the Minister agree that the Government recognise that that change is so damaging that they are making a special dispensation to enable Nissan to take advantage of a scheme which they are dismantling?

Mr. Lamont: Is the right hon. Gentleman really suggesting that the northern region can attract jobs only provided that it has massive regional aid and provided that it is subsidised? We believe that much of the money has been wasted and that it is far better to reduce the level of aid and use the money to reduce interest rates and keep inflation down. That is the way to create jobs everywhere in the country.

Inward Investment

Mr. Kenneth Carlisle: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he expects to announce final figures for overseas direct investment in the United Kingdom for 1983.

Mr. Norman Lamont: The final figures are expected to be published in May 1985. However, there are early indications of a substantial increase in 1983 in the level of non-oil inward direct investment in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Carlisle: Does my hon. Friend agree that we win more overseas investment that any other country in Europe, that that investment provides a substantial share

of our jobs and exports, and that therefore the news that he has announced is excellent? Does he agree that if we are to attract that essential investment we must remain members of the Common Market and continue to provide a stable economy here?

Mr. Lamont: I agree with my hon. Friend. Inward investment by foreign-owned companies provides about 14·9 per cent. of employment, so they are extremely important. Many of these companies would not come here unless they had access to the large market of the EEC. I might add that, in the preliminary indications, 1983 looks as though it will be the best year ever for inward investment.

Mr. Colvin: Further to my hon. Friend's reply to our hon. Friend the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. Carlisle), does he also agree that, conversly, any aspiring Government, like some Opposition Members, who advocate withdrawing from Europe not only do irreparable damage to our inward investment prospects but put in jeopardy the jobs of 2·5 million British workers?

Mr. Lamont: My hon. Friend is right. I am glad to say that, despite the noises that Opposition Members make about withdrawing from the EEC, foreign investors obviously do not believe that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen have the slightest chance of coming to power, because they continue to pour inward investment into this country, thereby demonstrating their confidence in our country and in its Government.

Mr. Williams: Is it not a fact that many of the 1,500 American companies, like the German and Japanese ones, who have come to this country were attracted by the package that was able to offer regional development grants and capital allowances? Does not the diminution of the RDG, coupled with the abolition of the capital allowance, mean that in future Britain will be markedly less attractive for foreign investment?

Mr. Lamont: No, I do not think that that is the case, because foreign companies know, even if the right hon. Gentleman does not, that they will have here not only a good economic climate, but, as a result of the Chancellor's changes, one of the lowest rates of corporation tax in the world.

Tameside

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much money has been paid by his Department to firms in Tameside in the last convenient period.

Mr. Trippier: In the 12 months ending 31 December 1983 my Department made payments of £442,500 to companies in the Ashton-under-Lyne travel-to-work area, which broadly corresponds to Tameside.

Mr. Bennett: Will the Minister confirm that that was a lot less assistance than was given to almost all the other urban centres within the north-west and Greater Manchester area, that the Tameside area has experienced one of the highest increases in unemployment anywhere in the north-west, and that, in terms of Government assistance, it gets less than almost anywhere else in the north-west? Will the Minister arrange to liaise with his colleagues in the Department of Transport to improve the infrastructure of Tameside, particularly in terms of links to the motorway?

Mr. Trippier: The assistance given to Tameside by the Department of Trade and Industry compares favourably with the assistance given to the neighbouring travel-to-work area of Oldham. The hon. Gentleman will be impressed to hear that I have read the document "Tameside: The case for Aid". Two months ago I visited Tameside. Submissions were made to me at that time. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that, basically, the Government are sympathetic to the infrastructure problem that he has identified today.

British Telecom

Mr. Fisher: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will now give details of how his Department is preparing the sale of British Telecom shares.

The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Norman Tebbit): I shall be making a statement immediately after questions today.

Mr. Fisher: In view of the Secretary of State's reply, may I defer my question in the hope of catching your eye later, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: That is a good idea.

English Industrial Estates Corporation

7. Mr. Grylls: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many small units the English Industrial Estates Corporation has completed in the last three months.

Mr. Trippier: In the three months to the end of February 1984 the English Industrial Estates Corporation has completed 127 small factories and workshop units.

Mr. Grylls: Does my hon. Friend agree that that is a creditable progress report by the English Industrial Estates Corporation and good news for small firms for which finding premises is often a problem? Can my hon. Friend tell the House what the EIEC is doing to help industry, particularly the new technologies, to find suitable premises?

Mr. Trippier: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his earlier remarks. Many of the EIEC's new factories are designed and built with the high-tech user in mind. In fact, some sites are specifically dedicated for that type of user. In addition, the EIEC has embarked on an experimental programme in an attempt to bring together business people and academics, by building specific small workshop units on university campuses.

Mr. Hardy: While it is gratifying, and indeed creditable, that the EIEC has built so many units in the last three months, is it not more important that we should learn how many have been occupied? Can the Minister give that figure?

Mr. Trippier: I am surprised at the hon. Gentleman raising that point, because whereas about 18 months ago the level of vacancies was about 23 per cent., that figure has dropped dramatically to the present level of 16 per cent. It is getting better all the time.

Mr. Budgen: Is my hon. Friend aware that in the west midlands there is a large and growing surplus of all forms of factory accommodation? Does he agree that if public

bodies add to that surplus, not only do they waste the money of the ratepayer and taxpayer, but diminish the value of existing factories, thereby undermining the security of surviving industries?

Mr. Trippier: The vacant premises to which my hon. Friend refers may not be the right type required by industry at present. However, I reiterate what I said earlier. The figure, which is now coming down, is very encouraging.

Mr. Bellingham: Is my hon. Friend aware of an important development which the English Industrial Estates Corporation is planning for Hunstanton in my constituency? Is he also aware of the growing pressure to move the EIEC to the private sector? After all, this is the largest industrial development agency in the country and would be far better suited to the private sector. Does he plan to put pressure on the Secretary of State to move it there?

Mr. Trippier: I agree with my hon. Friend.

Steel Production

Mr. Hardy: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was the total volume of United Kingdom steel production in 1983; and how this compares with the amount produced in 1973 and in 1978.

Mr. Norman Lamont: In 1983 crude steel production in the United Kingdom was 15 million tonnes. In 1973 it was 26·5 million tonnes and in 1978 20·5 million tonnes.

Mr. Hardy: Does not that sorry picture reveal the absolute need for us to tell our European partners that we will not allow any further contraction of our steel industry, not least because of their failure to fulfil their commitments to pursue the British course? Does the Minister accept that if the proclaimed economic recovery proves to be significant our steel industry may already have been contracted excessively?

Mr. Lamont: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman does not mention the decline in steel production that occurred under the Labour Government. That appears to be very different. There is, indeed, a recovery in steel production in the United Kingdom. In 1983 it rose by 9 per cent., whereas in the EEC as a whole it declined by 7 per cent.
As to other countries cutting back, as a result of our talks the French have undertaken to cut back by 5 million tonnes, the Germans by 6·5 million tonnes and the Italians by 5·8 million tonnes. We have cut back by 4 million tonnes.

Mr. Hickmet: Does my hon. Friend share the view that steel production and a recovery in the steel industry this year are gravely affected by the coal mining dispute and that plants such as Ravenscraig, Scunthorpe and Port Talbot are at risk?

Mr. Lamont: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. Opposition Members often urge us to save a particular plant that is under threat, but make no noises about their friends on the picket line who are threatening those plants.

Mr. Bell: Is the Minister aware that between 1979 and 1983 the British Steel Corporation's work force on Teesside was reduced from 25,000 to 7,500? Is he also aware that there will be grave disappointment on Teesside if the recommendations of the Select Committee with
regard to the production of our European competitors are not followed? Is he further aware that the BSC work force on Teesside will not be happy simply to accept the undertakings of our European partners, which have been given in the past but never kept?

Mr. Lamont: The hon. Gentleman will know that we have made it very clear that we expect other European countries to undertake capacity cutbacks such as we have done. This morning I talked to a German Minister about this very matter and made our views clear. The hon. Gentleman will know that from 1979 to 1983 there were inevitably large cutbacks throughout the world and falls in production. The 40 per cent. fall in the United States was identical to that which occurred here.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: As more than two thirds of Britain's steel imports now come direct from other countries in the Common Market, is it not fair and reasonable for Britain to resist further British closures until some of these European undertakings are delivered?

Mr. Lamont: My hon. Friend should take account of the fact that import penetration is very low and has been going down. Imports last year were 25 per cent., whereas a few years ago they were 27 per cent. This compares with imports of 46 per cent. in France and 32 per cent. in Germany. The position is getting better. The regime and policies that we have followed have enabled us to recapture our markets and improve our industry. The position is getting better, not worse.

Mr. Wallace: Bearing in mind the great concern about the future of steel production at Ravenscraig following the decision of the triple alliance this morning to withold all but one delivery a day of coking coal to the plant, what steps, if any, do the Government propose to take to ensure the continuation of steel production at Ravenscraig?

Mr. Lamont: I understand that at a meeting of the triple alliance at Edinburgh this morning the coal and rail unions rejected strong pressure from the Scottish steel unions to reconsider last weekend's decision. The steel unions said that this would leave the plant doing little more than ticking over and that they would therefore back the BSC management in using road transport as an alternative. Arrangements for using lorries are now being made.

Mr. Ward: Is my hon. Friend aware that the export trade, which has been painfully built up by British Steel, is being jeopardised by the miners' activities and will result in a loss of jobs in the steel industry and in the mines as well? Does he agree that there are many producers on the continent who are waiting to snap up these markets if British steelworks are forced to close by the miners?

Mr. Lamont: My hon. Friend is right. The longer the damage continues, the more the prospects of BSC will be damaged. There can be no escaping that fact.

Mr. Ewing: Does the Minister realise that in the House he represents the British steel industry, not the German or French industries, and that 25 per cent. import penetration is still far too high, even if it is lower than in previous years? Does he agree that we should be making every effort to step up steel production? Does he accept that the Opposition take the firm view that Ravenscraig is just as important to the Scottish miners and Scottish railway workers as it is to the Scottish steel industry, and that

Ravenscraig cannot survive on one trainload of coal a day? The Opposition ask the miners and the railwaymen to reconsider the decision that has been made today.

Mr. Lamont: That is an extremely welcome statement from the hon. Gentleman and I hope that he will repeat it loud and clear many times outside the House. I remind him that steel production is increasing and that imports have been falling. They are both moving in the right direction and we are doing what the hon. Gentleman said.

Scented Erasers (Safety) Order

Mr. Teddy Taylor: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent consultations he has had concerning the operation of the Scented Erasers (Safety) Order; and if he will make statement.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Alex Fletcher): Informal consultation is already under way and a meeting between trade associations and officials of my Department will be taking place on 10 May.
I am considering the need to make regulations covering this sort of product on a permanent basis. Meantime, the order remains in force until 30 January 1985. There will be full consultation with all interested organisations representing suppliers, consumers, enforcement authorities, medical experts and others, before any draft regulations are laid before the House.

Mr. Taylor: As this rather ridiculous order was introduced with no credible evidence of danger, was wholly opposed by every Conservative Member who spoke to it in Committee, and has caused grave damage to many small firms, including some set up with Government assistance, would it not be wiser to withdraw the order while consultations proceed?

Mr. Fletcher: The advice that we are receiving is not one-sided. We are receiving advice, not least from local authorities, that the present order is not strong enough. We must take those views into account as well.

Sir Geoffrey Finsberg: Will my hon. Friend take note in the consultations of the position of one of my constituents who placed an irrevocable contract for goods and genuinely imported and now stands to lose a great deal of money? Will he accept from me that this is not the sort of behaviour that I would expect a Conservative Government to condone?

Mr. Fletcher: There are no provisions in the Act for compensation. The House should know that other countries such as Denmark, France, Germany and Ireland have similar types of regulations to protect their consumers against such products.

Mr. Williams: Does the Minister recollect that while there was unanimity in Committee in wanting safety, there was virtual unanimity in agreeing that the order was an absurdity? We are glad that he has accepted the advice of the Committee to go to consultation, but will he bear in mind that all the time this defective order is in force firms whose products represent no hazard whatsoever are suffering an unnecessary financial loss? Will he assure us that the consultations will be completed urgently and that action will be introduced before the end of the year?

Mr. Fletcher: I take the hon. Gentleman's point. I know that he has an interest in this matter. We shall bring


proposals before the House as soon as possible. Consultations must take place because we wish to ensure that the order, as amended, will be understood by hon. Members on both sides of the House.

Tourism

Mr. Chapman: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what initiatives his Department has taken to encourage more tourists coming to England in 1984 to visit places other than London, Oxford and Stratford-upon-Avon.

Mr. Norman Lamont: It is the Government's aim to encourage tourism wherever good prospects exist. This year the British Tourist Authority is promoting a wide range of attractions throughout England, Scotland and Wales under the banner of Heritage 84. This will be a major appeal to overseas visitors.

Mr. Chapman: Is my hon. Friend satisfied that the tourist authorities are sufficiently and vigorously promoting the delights of the countryside and towns outside the tourist golden triangle of London, Oxford and Stratford? Could not one Government initiative be to promote and encourage special international and national events, such as the absolutely splendid International Garden Festival on Merseyside opened today by the Queen?

Mr. Lamont: I very much agree with what my hon. Friend said about the International Garden Festival at Liverpool. It is rather sad that some Opposition Members have been critical of it. It will certainly attract a large number of people to Liverpool. Quite apart from short-term advantages, it is a major environmental feature, improving and landscaping a derelict and unattractive part of Liverpool. It is a magnificent achievement.
The tourist boards are trying to encourage short-break holidays, the marketing of the seaside resorts, the spas, English gardens and so on. The theme of Heritage 84 is for holidays and tourist attractions throughout the country.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: While I am not in favour of state promotion of tourism if the Government are to continue to spend taxpayers' money for such a purpose, will they ensure that sufficient emphasis is placed on the natural beauty, freedom and hospitality offered by Northern Ireland?

Mr. Lamont: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, special efforts are made to promote the considerable beauties of the Province.

Mr. Harris: Is my hon. Friend aware of the concern felt by many hon. Members who represent holiday areas well away from the capital about the bad first impressions given to holidaymakers who, inevitably, begin their holiday in London? They often stay in small, bad hotels or, for example, pass through the passageway from the underground station to this building. Is not that passageway an absolute disgrace to a capital city?

Mr. Lamont: There are many examples of untidiness and many unattractive hotels. I have a strong prejudice that the litter laws should be more tightly enforced.

Mr. Corbett: Will the Minister consider encouraging some of the holiday flights presently coming into

Heathrow and Gatwick to divert to splendid airports such as Birmingham international, which would give a better spread of tourism?

Mr. Lamont: That would be possible if the passengers wanted that. However, it is a matter largely for the Department of Transport.

Mr. Gale: Does my hon. Friend recognise the contrast between the language and currency exchange facilities offered by our continental competitors, especially in shops and hotels, and the deplorable equivalent facilities offered by many operators in this country? Will he encourage the tourist boards to pull out their fingers and promote the offering of currency and language facilities to foreign tourists similar to those offered in other countries?

Mr. Lamont: I know that there is concern about that matter, and especially about some of the rates of exchange. We are having a look at the matter.

Mr. Haynes: Does not the Minister have some nerve to stand at that Dispatch Box and say some of the things that he has said? Is he aware that the Nottinghamshire county council does a great deal of work in promoting tourism? The Minister should have a word with the Government and stop the rate-capping proposals, and stop treating councils in the way that they are doing so that councils can get on with their other work.

Mr. Lamont: I am not sure that I follow the point of the hon. Gentleman's question. I pay tribute to some of the activities of the Nottinghamshire county council and also to the co-operation that it has shown with the signposting of tourist attractions, which is an important and necessary task in Britain.

Mr. Conway: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that the importance of tourism to constituencies such as mine in Shrewsbury could be threatened by rumours that the television licensing facility for hotels is likely to be changed? Will he ensure that his colleagues in the Government are made aware of the effect that such a move could have on the competitiveness of British hotel prices?

Mr. Lamont: As my hon. Friend knows, television licences are a matter for the Home Office. Obviously, I make Ministers at that Department well aware of the concerns of the industry in matters of this kind.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Will the Minister consider the introduction of special assistance to the tourist industry in the Lake District, which borders on the west Cumberland development area, where there are high levels of unemployment? Does he recognise that every pound spent on promoting the Lake District and other parts of the country on television and in the media abroad is a pound well spent, in that it creates jobs in our areas? Will he increase the budget for overseas promotion?

Mr. Lamont: I must point out to the hon. Gentleman, in the way that the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) reminded me, that this is predominantly an industry for private enterprise. People should promote themselves and the beauties of the Lake District should be able to sell themselves.

Mr. Cockeram: Is my hon. Friend aware that one way in which tourists have been successfully attracted to the more remote parts of the nation is by local festivals such as the Ludlow festival and Opera '80 in Bridgnorth? Is he


further aware that the policy of the Minister for the Arts in supporting the Arts Council, which has cut off support for all grants in Shropshire and is concentrating support in the golden triangle, is working against the policy that he is trying to pursue?

Mr. Lamont: I shall draw my noble Friend's attention to those remarks.

Mr. Hardy: While it is reasonable for the Minister to congratulate his colleagues on the improvement of an inner city area, may I ask him to note that many millions of people visit Britain because of its attractive countryside? Will he consult the tourist authorities to see how the destruction of the countryside can be reduced, especially as that, too, is financed by public funds?

Mr. Lamont: The hon. Gentleman will know that the protection of the countryside is largely a matter for the Department of the Environment. However, what he says is right, in that the beauties of the English countryside are a major tourist attraction, of which the tourist authorities are well aware, and one of their aims is to encourage rural tourism and smaller operators.

Unfair Discounts

Mr. Corbett: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he expects to receive the report from the Office of Fair Trading on unfair discounts.

Mr. Fletcher: The Director General of Fair Trading is finalising the terms of reference for his fact-finding exercise to update some of the information of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report of 1981 on discounts to retailers. He is unlikely to have the full results of the exercise before the end of this year.

Mr. Corbett: Will the Minister acknowledge the problems that are faced by small independent grocers in rural and inner city areas, in that they receive far smaller discounts than the multiples and, to that extent, trade at a disadvantage? Will he encourage the OFT to ensure that the multiples fully pass on to the consumer the benefits of their bigger discounts?

Mr. Fletcher: The concern expressed to the Director General is that the large multiple retailers may be abusing their monopoly power. So far no evidence of that has been presented to me, but the Director General, in pursuance of his powers under the 1973 Act, is updating the 1981 Monopolies and Mergers Commission report to see whether any evidence is available. The food manufacturers and others have been invited to give evidence to him so that all the facts may be available in considering the matter. The Secretary of State for the Environment is making a special study of the problems affecting the rural areas and the elderly.

Mr. Grylls: Will my hon. Friend do his best to ensure that we do not have another whitewash report on unfair practices from the commission? Will he recognise that the organisation representing smaller traders is looking to the Government to remove the tilt against them which undoubtedly exists because of the unfair discounts? If action is not taken by the Government it will not be taken by anyone.

Mr. Fletcher: With respect, my hon. Friend is presuming that there are unfair practices. If he has any evidence of these the Director General will be very pleased to receive it.

Mr. Forth: May I ask my hon. Friend to tread carefully in this matter, as we are in great danger of tinkering with the basic laws of supply and demand? The consumer in this country benefits probably from the most efficient retailing system in the world. If we tread too heavily in this difficult area we are in danger of acting contrary to the interests of the consumer in a clumsy backhanded effort to put right what is not wrong.

Mr. Fletcher: I agree with my hon. Friend. There is no evidence that consumers are dissatisfied with the present trends in retail distribution. As he says, the retail distribution system in this country is one of the most efficient in the world.

Mr. Gould: Does not the disquiet felt by many people, and also by the grocery trade, on this subject show that unrestrained competition can destroy the free market that it is supposed to sustain? Does this not mean that the Minister could now take the opportunity of rejecting the view advanced by the Adam Smith Institute, and to some degree by the right hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann), that competition alone is all that is needed to deal with problems of fairness and consumer protection?

Mr. Fletcher: I remind the hon. Gentleman that the Fair Trading Act was passed in 1973 during the time of a Conservative Government and that the Director General, as I have indicated in my reply, is carrying out his duties with the full support of the Government.

Honk Hong Textiles

Mr. Sims: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he is satisfied that the restrictions on the import of textiles from Hong Kong imposed under multi-fibre agreement III have been matched by increased production and sales by United Kingdom manufactures in 1983.

Mr. Fletcher: There have been increases in production and sales by United Kingdom manufacturers of textiles and clothing in 1983 and I have no doubt that the Government's firm and effective implementation of the multi-fibre arrangement and the bilateral agreements concluded thereunder, including that with Hong Kong, has been a major contributory factor to this improvement.

M. Sims: Is there not a good deal of evidence that the effect of the MFA has been to enable EC textile goods to come in but that it has been of very limited benefit to the United Kingdom industry and has been a positive disadvantage to Hong Kong suppliers? Is this a sensible approach at a time when we should be giving every possible support to Hong Kong? I therefore suggest that we should reconsider the basis upon which the next MFA is made.

Mr. Fletcher: On the last point, the present arrangements do not expire until 1986 and we shall be considering between now and then what new arrangements should be made. The agreements themselves are concerned with imports from non-EC countries. If imports are coming from EC countries, that is simply a sign of the competition that exists within the Community.

Mr. Pike: Will the Minister accept that there is still considerable concern among people buying textiles, in that they cannot tell in which country the material and textiles have been woven and feel that there should be much clearer identification of the country of manufacture as well as where the material is made up?

Mr. Fletcher: We cannot stop forgeries, but the law states that the country of origin should be clearly marked on the goods.

Mr. Kenneth Carlisle: Does my hon. Friend agree that, as a trading country exporting a third of what we produce, the greatest threat to us is an expansion of protectionism? Will he ensure that we resist the growing trend towards protecting industry in other areas, as this is now a major threat to us on the world scene?

Mr. Fletcher: Yes, Sir. My right hon. Friend made that clear in no less a place than the United States just a few months ago in extremely strong language.

M. Gould: Surely there is little point in restricting imports from low-cost countries if the only consequence is to make room on the British market for unrestrained imports from the EC. Is the Minister aware that last year imports of EC textiles and clothing rose by 16 per cent. to a record deficit of £857 million? Will he further recognise, on a slightly different point, that the MFA provides little protection unless we can take some safeguarding action to deal with the immense import surges such as are currently occurring in respect of Turkish cotton velvet fabric?

Mr. Fletcher: All those matters must be considered, but they depend upon the degree of competition within the European Community. We trade textiles with the Community on a free and fair basis.

Taxicabs(Design)

Mr. Stanbrook: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what public consultation has been arranged as to the design of the proposed new London taxicab.

Mr. Trippier: The design of a new London taxi is a matter for the manufacturer. However, any such vehicle must conform to the Metropolitan police conditions of fitness.

Mr. Stanbrook: Since so many concessions have been made to the needs of minority users, is not the vehicle beginning to look like the proverbial camel? Is my hon. Friend aware that the majority of Londoners prefer the traditional design and that they are likely to display a hostile reaction to this contraption, if it ever appears on our streets?

Mr. Trippier: I am sure that my hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that the existing taxi is popular, but its design is about 25 years old. I am sure that the company believes that the new style taxi will be equally well liked.

Mr. Park: Should not the public make up their mind about whether they want an ancient monument to be maintained or a more modern, efficient form of transport which caters for the needs of people who need it most, such as disabled people?

Mr. Trippier: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. The new taxi will incorporate many features that will be helpful to more passengers, including the disabled.

Company Profits and Liquidity

Mr. Hanley: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on company profits and liquidity in 1983.

Mr. Fletcher: The gross trading profits of non-North sea industrial and commercial companies, after deducting stock appreciation, are estimated to have risen by nearly one quarter between the years 1982 and 1983. It is provisionally estimated that the real rate of return on capital has increased from 4·6 per cent. in 1982 to 6·2 per cent. in 1983, the highest since 1978.
The liquidity of the large companies in the Department's quarterly survey increased appreciably during 1983, although there was some reduction in the fourth quarter after the sharp rise in the third. It is estimated that this still left it higher than at any other time since the end of 1978.

Mr. Hanley: Does my hon. Friend agree that the recent Budget will increase post-tax profits, that that will increase company liquidity and that profits without liquidity are meaningless?

Mr. Fletcher: Yes, Sir.

Business Confidence

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the levels of business confidence in British industry.

Mr. Norman Lamont: Surveys of business opinion show that confidence in industry is at its highest level for many years. Output, investment, profits and exports are expected to increase strongly this year. This confidence has now extended from consumer industries right through to intermediate and capital goods industries.

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Does my hon. Friend agree that, at long last, that is good news, particularly for the west midlands, where productivity is at its highest for about seven years? However, does he agree that one danger is that if the miners' dispute — which is so politically motivated — continues, it may damage the recovery which the Government have worked so hard to bring about?

Mr. Lamont: My hon. Friend is right. The recovery is moving from the economy in general to manufacturing in particular. That is illustrated by manufacturing output being 4 per cent. higher than it was a year ago. A recovery is taking place. The CBI surveys show that confidence and expectation in manufacturing are now high, but that could certainly be endangered by a prolonged miners' strike.

Mr. Fisher: Will the Minister explain the so-called confidence in manufacturing industries in the light of yesterday's Department of Trade figures, which show a £200 million increase in imports of manufactures? Does that not illustrate that the Government's policy on manufactures is totally bankrupt?

Mr. Lamont: The hon. Gentleman may be disappointed and angry that business men are confident. He may be puzzled and want me to explain why they are confident. The fact remains that they are confident.

Mr. James Hamilton: Will the Minister take it from me that the Minister's optimism is not shared by the Scottish people? Is he aware that when we talk to individual members of the CBI they tell us in no uncertain fashion that there is no upsurge? Unemployment figures for Scotland, particularly for Lanarkshire, do not bear out the Minister's optimism.

Mr. Lamont: The hon. Gentleman must recognise that I am talking about the CBI survey of business opinion, which shows not just what the Government think, but what business men think about the economy. Unfortunately, I do not have it here, but I shall send the hon. Gentleman a report that I read in one of this morning's newspapers about business confidence in Scotland, which is also increasing. It should be increasing in Scotland, because the performance of the Scottish economy has been improving considerably.

Mr. Ewing: Is the Minister aware that during the period to which he referred Britain had the highest number of bankruptcies in the history of business? If business confidence is so buoyant, whether in Scotland or in any other part of the United Kingdom, when will it have an effect on our high and increasing unemployment? When will we get back at least to the unemployment level of 1979?

Mr. Lamont: I did not refer to a period, but to business surveys now. The hon. Gentleman chose to talk about a period in order to make the point that he wished. He asked when the business recovery would affect employment. We can already see new jobs being created on a large scale, especially in the service sector. That will continue to increase.

Argentina

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will seek to follow up the initiatives of the then Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Enfield on his trade mission to Argentina in August 1980, after the re-establishment of civilian Government in Argentina.

Mr. Tebbit: I presume that the hon. Gentleman is referring to my right hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Parkinson) who, as Minister for Trade, visited Argentina in August 1980. There are no specific trade initiatives outstanding from that visit.

Mr. Dalyell: Since, according to the Financial Times of 12 August 1980, the right hon. Gentleman congratulated the junta on approaching its economic problems along the same lines as the Prime Minister's Government, and since the right hon. Gentleman let the cat out of the bag on "Panorama" by revealing that he knew about President Belaunde's peace plans, with the clear implication—

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is a trade matter.

Mr. Dalyell: —with the clear implication that the Prime Minister was lying—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman will have to withdraw that word.

Mr. Dalyell: By implication, it is a matter of fact, not supposition—

Mr. Speaker: Nevertheless, the hon. Gentleman has been here long enough to know that he should not attribute lying to any right hon. or hon. Member.

Mr. Dalyell: By implication, what the right hon. Gentleman—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows exactly what I am getting at.

Mr. Dalyell: The proof is here. I have the text of the Prime Minister's—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I say to the hon. Gentleman, who is a very experienced Member, that this takes up time out of questions and he must withdraw that word.

Mr. Dalyell: Could we return to this at 3.30 pm, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: Yes, in the interests of time.

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: He has to withdraw it now.

Mr. Tebbit: Since the hon. Gentleman cannot even get his facts right concerning the constituency that my right hon. Friend represents, it is unlikely that he would have his facts right, or even be able to regain his manners, during the next 20 years.

Later—

Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: It is not a point of order. Will the hon. Gentleman now please withdraw the remark that he made about the Prime Minister?

Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. First, I was chided by the Secretary of State for getting the name of the constituency wrong, which is an attack on the Table Office. I have spoken in the constituency of the right hon. Gentleman—

Mr. Speaker: That is as may be. We can deal with that aspect later. I must ask the hon. Gentleman now to withdraw his remark about the Prime Minister.

Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."]

Mr. Speaker: I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw that remark. I shall deal with the points of order afterwards.

Mr. Dalyell: I said that by implication the Prime Minister was lying, and there is proof and evidence for it, because she told—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am going to say to the hon. Gentleman—I very much regret this—that if he persists in refusing to obey my order I shall be forced to take other action, which I do not want to take. Will the hon. Gentleman withdraw that remark?

Mr. David Winnick: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall be forced to take other action if the hon. Gentleman does not withdraw. I do not want to do that. Will the hon. Gentleman please withdraw the remark?

Mr. Winnick: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Dalyell: There are references that I can give from Hansard which, by implication from what the right hon. Gentleman said—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am interested, not in the implications, but that the hon. Gentleman should withdraw his remark, in which he accused a right hon. Member of lying. That is language which, as the hon. Gentleman well knows, is not tolerated in this place. I must ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw what he said; then we shall move on to another point of order.

Mr. Dalyell: By implication, what the right hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Parkinson) said suggests that the Prime Minister was lying.

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: Name him.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must say to the hon. Gentleman —I should be grateful if he would help me—that if he persists I shall be forced to name him, and that is something that I should have the deepest reluctance to do. I ask him to withdraw his remark that the Prime Minister was lying. We shall go on to another point of order afterwards. I am not prepared to have any further arguments. This is his last warning.

Mr. Dalyell: It is the right hon. Member for Hertsmere who has implied this. That greatly saddens me.

Hon. Members: Name him.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I give the hon. Gentleman one more warning. [Interruption.] Will he withdraw that remark, please?

Mr. Dalyell: It is a matter of fact.

Mr. Speaker: I name Mr. Tam Dalyell and ask the Leader of the House to move the appropriate motion.

Motion made, and Question put, That Mr. Tam Dalyell be suspended from the service of the House.—[Mr. Biffen.]

The House divided: Ayes 196, Noes 33.

Division No. 269]
[3.33 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Chope, Christopher


Alexander, Richard
Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)


Amess, David
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)


Arnold, Tom
Cockeram, Eric


Ashby, David
Colvin, Michael


Aspinwall, Jack
Conway, Derek


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Cope, John


Batiste, Spencer
Couchman, James


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Dorrell, Stephen


Beith, A. J.
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward


Bellingham, Henry
Dunn, Robert


Bennett, Sir Frederic (T'bay)
Durant, Tony


Berry, Sir Anthony
Eggar, Tim


Bevan, David Gilroy
Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Fletcher, Alexander


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Fookes, Miss Janet


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Forman, Nigel


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)
Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Forth, Eric


Braine, Sir Bernard
Fox, Marcus


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Fraser, Peter (Angus East)


Bright, Graham
Gale, Roger


Brinton, Tim
Galley, Roy


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Gardiner, George (Reigate)


Browne, John
Glyn, Dr Alan


Bryan, Sir Paul
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Buck, Sir Antony
Good lad, Alastair


Budgen, Nick
Gorst, John


Bulmer, Esmond
Gower, Sir Raymond


Burt, Alistair
Grant, Sir Anthony


Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)
Greenway, Harry


Chapman, Sydney
Gregory, Conal



Grylls, Michael
Parris, Matthew


Hanley, Jeremy
Patten, John (Oxford)


Hannam, John
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Harris, David
Penhaligon, David


Hayes, J.
Pollock, Alexander


Hayward, Robert
Powell, Rt Hon J. E. (S Down)


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Powell, William (Corby)


Henderson, Barry
Powley, John


Hickmet, Richard
Proctor, K. Harvey


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Renton, Tim


Hill, James
Rhodes James, Robert


Hirst, Michael
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Robinson, Mark (N'port W)


Holt, Richard
Roe, Mrs Marion


Howard, Michael
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)
Rowe, Andrew


Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)
Ryder, Richard


Howells, Geraint
Sackville, Hon Thomas


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Irving, Charles
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Jones, Robert (W Herts)
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Silvester, Fred


Kennedy, Charles
Sims, Roger


Kershaw, Sir Anthony
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


King, Roger (B'ham N'field)
Smyth, Rev W. M. (Belfast S)


Kirkwood, Archibald
Speed, Keith


Knight, Gregory (Derby N)
Speller, Tony


Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)
Squire, Robin


Lamont, Norman
Stanbrook, Ivor


Lang, Ian
Steel, Rt Hon David


Latham, Michael
Stern, Michael


Lawrence, Ivan
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Lester, Jim
Taylor, John (Solihull)


Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Lightbown, David
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Lilley, Peter
Temple-Morris, Peter


Lord, Michael
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Macfarlane, Neil
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


MacGregor, John
Thorne, Neil (llford S)


MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)
Thurnham, Peter


McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Malins, Humfrey
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Maples, John
Tracey, Richard


Mather, Carol
Trippier, David


Maude, Hon Francis
Trotter, Neville


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Twinn, Dr Ian


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Viggers, Peter


Meadowcroft, Michael
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Waldegrave, Hon William


Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Wallace, James


Mills, lain (Meriden)
Walters, Dennis


Mitchell, David (NW Hants)
Ward, John


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Monro, Sir Hector
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)
Wheeler, John


Murphy, Christopher
Wiggin, Jerry


Neubert, Michael
Wilkinson, John


Newton, Tony
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Onslow, Cranley
Wood, Timothy 


Oppenheim, Philip
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Osborn, Sir John
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Ottaway,Richard



Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Tellers for the Ayes:


Page, John (Harrow W)
Mr. John Major and


Page, Richard (Herts SW)
Mr. Archie Hamilton.


NOES


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Eadie, Alex


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Eastham, Ken


Barron, Kevin
Ellis, Raymond


Bermingham, Gerald
Fatchett,Derek


Bidwell, Sydney
Faulds, Andrew


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Fisher, Mark


Canavan, Dennis
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald


Cohen, Harry
Golding, John


Cook, Frank (Stockton North)
Hoyle, Douglas


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Loyden, Edward


Dalyell, Tam
Mikardo, Ian






Nellist, David
Welsh, Michael


Pike, Peter
Wigley, Dafydd


Redmond, M.
Winnick, David


Ryman, John



Sedgemore, Brian
Tellers for the Noes:


Smith, C.(Isl'ton S &amp; F'bury)
Mr. James Hamilton and


Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)
Mr. Dennis Skinner.


Torney, Tom

Question accordingly agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I direct the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) to withdraw from the House in compliance with that resolution.
The hon. Member then withdrew from the House.

Extraterritoriality

Mr. Stott: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he is satisfied with his recent discussions with the United States Administration regarding the question of extraterritoriality.

Mr. Tebbit: I met leading figures in the United States Administration in Washington in February. I took every opportunity to stress our commitment to the denial of strategic technology to potential adversaries; but I made plain our fundamental opposition to any United States attempt to exert its jurisdiction within the United Kingdom.
Since my visit a high-level official team has repeated these arguments, as did my right hon. Friend the Minister for Trade during his visit last week. I believe the United States must recognise that it is in the interests of the Western Alliance that these controls are exerted by agreement, not by pretence of extraterritorial powers.

Mr. Stott: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for that reply. He will be aware that there is serious concern on both sides of the House about the American Administration's attitude in forcing British companies, and American companies based in Britain, to comply with American law, under which they must submit applications for licences to the Department of Commerce in Washington. It must be said from the Government Dispatch Box that it is intolerable that we in the United Kingdom should have to put up with such a position, where British companies, and paradoxically United States companies based in the United Kingdom, are worst hit by the proposals emanating from the United States Department of Commerce. I should be grateful if the Secretary of State would reinforce our view to the United States Government.

Mr. Tebbit: I am grateful to the hon. Member for making plain the unanimity of both sides of the House on this matter. It is my belief that United States companies that trade in Great Britain are liable to be the principal sufferers of United States Government policies.

Mr. Hayward: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. I share the view expressed by the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott). Has my hon. Friend received any indication from the United States Administration of any likelihood that they will change their approach? If so, is it likely to be in the near future, or is it a long-term exercise of continued pressure?

Mr. Tebbit: The claim to exert extraterritorial jurisdiction arises from a United States court ruling many years ago. I have made it plain to my opposite numbers

in the United States that we cannot complain to them about that ruling; that is within their jurisdiction. We complain strongly if they seek to exert their purported extraterritorial jurisdiction.
I do not want to be too optimistic, but I believe that that position is becoming increasingly well understood in the United States, not least, if I may say so, by the representations made to the United States Administration by Congress, as well as by myself and representatives of other leading countries outside the United States.

Small Firms Service

Mr. Sackville: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many business counsellors are under contract to the small firms service.

Mr. Trippier: At 31 March there were 262 business counsellors under contract to the Department of Trade and Industry providing advice to small firms in England. In Scotland business counselling is provided by the Scottish Development Agency and in Wales by the Welsh Development Agency.

Mr. Sackville: In view of the high level of redundancies during the past year in Bolton, including the Horwich British Rail works, will my hon. Friend consider establishing a small firms area service in Bolton?

Mr. Trippier: Yes, I certainly will. I understand that there have been preliminary discussions about setting up an area counselling office in the offices of the enterprise agency in Bolton.

Mr. Budgen: Is there any indication that the private, professional people of Bolton are significantly more incompetent than the private, professional people in other towns in the United Kingdom?

Mr. Trippier: Quite the reverse.

"British Made"

Mr. Adley: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will review his Department's criteria for qualification for the generic description "British Made"; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Fletcher: I see no need at present to change the criteria in section 36 of the Trade Descriptions Act 1968.

Mr. Adley: Is it not a fact that certain American-owned car manufacturers, such as Ford and General Motors, producing cars in West Germany, Belgium or Spain, still manage to give the impression that they are selling British cars to British people in this country, whereas, for example, a firm such as Volvo has a substantial United Kingdom content in its cars but they are known as foreign. Should we not be more accurate with the descriptions issued under the guidance laid down by my hon. Friend's Department?

Mr. Fletcher: The Trade Descriptions Act 1972 requires most imported goods, including imported cars, to bear a conspicuous indication of their country of origin if they are supplied under a United Kingdom name or mark. The Act's purpose is to prevent consumers from being misled into assuming that imported goods bearing British names are manufactured in this country.

Competition Policy

Mr. Gould: asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on competition policy.

Mr. Fletcher: The promotion of competition is one of the Government's most central and fundamental policies. It is a major aspect of our responsibilities to encourage competition in all sectors of the economy and to seek to ensure that competition considerations are given due weight in all policy decisions.

Mr. Gould: Does the Minister recognise that the ability of British industry to compete for large overseas

orders in respect of capital projects is of the greatest importance and will he therefore take this opportunity of rejecting the analysis and the conclusions of the Byatt report? Does he further recognise the widespread concern created by the report's publication and the great damage that unilateral withdrawal of such Government support would inflict on British industry?

Mr. Fletcher: The hon. Gentleman's question is not directly related to competition policy, as he is raising a question of trade policy, which is different from the subject of the question.

British Telecom (Privatisation)

The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Norman Tebbit): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about privatisation of British Telecom.
As the House will know, it is the Government's intention to sell a majority interest of the ordinary voting shares of British Telecom.
I wish now to set out the broad outlines of the capital structure with which BT plc will enter the private sector. We have concluded that the initial debt of the company to the Government should be in the form of debentures with a capital value of £2,750 million carrying interest at between 12¼ per cent. and 12¾ per cent. The Government will assign sufficient of these debentures to the residual statutory corporation to enable it to meet the deed of covenant obligation to the BT and Post Office staff superannuation schemes as required by the Telecommunications Act 1984.
BT plc will also issue to the Government preference shares to the value of £750 million. These preference shares, carrying a gross dividend of 11¾ per cent., will be non-voting and redeemable at BT's option or in any case after 30 to 35 years. Apart from BT's continuing overseas and short-term borrowing, the remainder of the company's assets will be financed by ordinary shares and reserves.
Turning to BT's future operating environment, we announced last year that the tariff increases on some of BT's services should be kept below the rate of inflation. We have now concluded that the services concerned will include local calls, business and residential rentals and trunk calls. The constraint will apply for five years to a weighted average of these services. Its level will be RPI minus 3—that is, three percentage points less than the increase in retail prices generally over the preceding year. We are satisfied that this will reassure BT's customers whilst allowing BT to adjust tariffs on these services to reflect market demands. The board of BT has given the Government an assurance that BT plc intends during the same period that the level of its residential rental charges will be held within a ceiling of 2 per cent. and that it further intends during that period to continue to give rebates to low users broadly comparable with the present scheme in overall financial effect.
Details of the operation of the RPI minus X provision will be set out in the BT licence which will be laid before Parliament soon.
The Government intend that the BT flotation should provide an opportunity to encourage wider share ownership by both the public and employees of the company.
Employees who work at least 16 hours per week for BT and who have been in continuous employment with BT from 2 April 1984 until a date shortly before the flotation will benefit from a special scheme. They will be offered about £70 worth of free shares and, for every share purchased by the employee, the Government will provide a further two free shares, up to a maximum of £200 of free shares for £100 of purchased shares. Employees will therefore have the opportunity to acquire about £370 worth of shares for an investment of about £100. As in past sales, these shares will have to be vested in a trust for a minimum of two years.
In addition, a discount of 10 per cent. off the public offer price will be offered to all employees at the time of flotation on purchases of up to £2,000 worth of shares, provided that they are held for a specified period.
Further, we have decided to offer special incentives to telephone subscribers. One possibility would take the form of vouchers which could be used to offset part of the cost of quarterly telephone bills for a subsequent period. Details will be announced closer to the flotation.
As a result of these measures, we are confident that very many of BT's employees and customers will become shareholders in BT plc. The financial framework for BT plc is now set and work on the flotation is on schedule for a late autumn launch.
I will keep the House informed of further progress on the BT sale.

Mr. Peter Shore: The right hon. Gentleman's long statement illustrates the complexity as well as the folly of attempting to privatise this large, profitable and extremely innovative and successful public enterprise. Can he confirm that the arrangements made and announced at the beginning of the statement for the allocation of debentures will fully safeguard existing pension rights both for pensioners in retirement and for those who are still serving with the corporation, and who are continuing to acquire their pension rights?
Given the sums involved in the first few paragraphs —£2,750 million for debentures and £750 million for preference shares—what is the right hon. Gentleman's estimate of the flotation of equity shares? Presumably he is trying to clear the ground to launch them. Bearing in mind from our earlier debates that BT was provisionally valued at about £4,000 million, it would appear that there will not be the scope that we previously thought.
As regards tariffs, can the Secretary of State explain the apparent inconsistency in the fifth paragraph of the statement, where the formula of RPI minus three is applied, among other things, to residential rentals and trunk calls, when there is then a reference to residential rental charges being held within the ceiling of two plus RPI? On the face of it, there is a contradiction and we look forward to the Secretary of State's explanation.
Is not the Secretary of State aware that previous attempts to make privatisation popular by dispersing shares to existing employees have resulted in about 84 per cent. of all such allocations being disposed of by the recipients within one week of becoming the owners? The Minister has said nothing in the statement about the size of the equity issue that he has in mind, or about the cost. Can he deny the reports that have appeared in the business section of this week's edition of The Sunday Times that £50 million is being allocated for the promotion, through advertising, of public awareness of this forthcoming issue? Can he deny that the brokerage fees have been provisionally estimated at about £60 million? Is he aware that sums of that kind for a wholly unnecessary enterprise are indeed a scandal?

Mr. Tebbit: The right hon. Gentleman has asked me five questions. His first question concerned pension rights. He will recollect that what is involved here is a shortfall in the pension fund, in effect, which dates back some years and concerns investments which were made in past years and which are not providing sufficient yield to cover all


the obligations, Sufficient of the debentures will be transferred to the fund to ensure that in that respect its obligations may be fully and completely met. In essence, although I think that the right hon. Gentleman's question, if I may say so, was not quite to the point, I can give the assurance that I think the members of the pension fund concerned would want to have.
Secondly, the right hon. Gentleman questioned the value that we shall be placing upon the equity, and he referred to a valuation of the company of about £4 billion. I think that the right hon. Gentleman misleads himself. There have been speculative suggestions that the company would be worth about £8 billion, and therefore that about half of the equity would be worth approximately £4 billion. Those are estimates which have not been made by the Government and are not authorised by the Government. The price which will be achieved for the equity will depend upon several factors, not all of which are yet known, not least the general state of the market at the time of the launch.
Thirdly, the right hon. Gentleman asked about the RPI minus X formula and the RPI plus 2 formula. I can well understand that it is not easy to see initially what is taking place. The RPI minus X formula applies to the whole basket that I mentioned, which includes the domestic rental. The RPI plus 2 formula applies specifically to the rental. Therefore, whatever shuffles are made within the basket, the rental element for residential customers is covered by the BT assurance on RPI plus 2.
Fourthly, the right hon. Gentleman asked about employees' shareholding. Experience has been very different in different enterprises. For example, the National Freight Corporation experience has been very different from that of the others, but I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will share with me the ambition to spread share ownership more widely, and particularly among the employees concerned.
Fifthly, the right hon. Gentleman asked agout a speculative story in The Sunday Times concerning brokerage fees and advertising campaign costs. If I were to deny or confirm all the stories which appear in The Sunday Times or other newpapers, I would be very busy indeed. I have no intention of going down that path, but The Sunday Times story was misleading, to put it mildly.

Mr. Michael Grylls: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that he will work hard to ensure that telephone subscribers can get shares at a beneficial rate, as that is a method of spreading share ownership widely? I congratulate my right hon. Friend on proposing a very good scheme for the employees of British Telecom, as that is another way of spreading ownership as far as possible.

Mr. Tebbit: I shall do all I can to promote share opportunities for employees. The important aspect of the special offer is that employee shares will go into trust, and those shares that go into trust must remain there for two years. Therefore, whatever may happen to shares which are bought by employees outside the special provision, those shares which go into the special trust will be held for at least two years.

Mr. Mark Fisher: In view of what the Secretary of State has said about the Government debt amounting to £3.5 billion through debentures and preference shares, will he now make clear

to the House how much equity he intends to float in cash terms and in percentage of the fixed and current assets? If the House subtracts that £3.5 billion from 50 per cent. of the total asset value of £8 billion, it will realise that the Secretary of State is intending to sell equity only to the tune of £500 million, which is only 6 per cent. of the total fixed and current asset value of BT.

Mr. Tebbit: The hon. Gentleman has got it completely wrong.

Mr. Richard Page: Does my right hon. Friend agree that this privatisation is possible due only to the dramatic increase in efficiency by British Telecom and its employees over the past few years? As my right hon. Friend is obviously not pitching the share value too low—in fact, he is pitching it at a very reasonable market level — may I urge him to do whatever he can to offer these shares to subscribers at the most generous of rates so that we can become not only a property-owning democracy, but a telephone share-owning democracy as well?

Mr. Tebbit: I agree with my hon. Friend; it is desirable that the share ownership should be widely spread. I should like to pay tribute to many of the improvements that have been made in the performance of BT in recent times. It is interesting to note the extent to which those improvements have come about under the knowledge that BT is to be privatised and must be fully competitive.
My hon. Friend referred to the value which I put upon the equity. I have not actually put a value upon the equity; the market will finally put a value upon it. However, I think that it may be helpful to the House, and particularly to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher), with whom I may have been a little brusque—a most uncommon failing on my part—if I say that the total asset value of the company will be of the order of £9 billion, that Government debentures will feature in that to the tune of £2,750 million, that there will also be the foreign loans on the balance sheet, and the preference shares of £750 million, and that that will leave a total approaching—and I emphasise approaching—£5 billion represented by the equity and reserves.

Mr. John Golding: Is the Secretary of State aware of his Department's intolerable interference in the current wage negotiations between the Post Office Engineering Union and BT? Is he also aware that it is quite wrong, in order to help sell the BT shares, for his Department to be urging BT to reduce the standard of living of BT employees, to stop paying for genuine productivity improvements, to pay the lowest percentage increases to the lowest paid, and to peg the pay of clericals and executives? Is he further aware that this interference may well take more from BT staff than any handout of shares?

Mr. Tebbit: I am not aware of any intolerable interference in the affairs of British Telecom, but, were there to have been intolerable interference by Ministers in the affairs of British Telecom, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would join me in being aware of, and perhaps even enjoying, the prospect of privatisation since clearly Ministers, even had they wished to interfere, would have been in a much poorer position to interfere had BT already been privatised.

Mr. Tim Eggar: I welcome the measures announced to help employees and subscribers, but can my right hon. Friend confirm that, under the basket formula, it will be possible for BT to raise rental charges and local call charges so as to reduce trunk call charges, thus enabling BT to undercut trunk call competitors?

Mr. Tebbit: I regret that I missed the point of my hon. Friend's question.

Mr. Eggar: Under the basket, the rental charges can rise by RPI plus 2, and on the local call charges there is no ceiling, which enables BT to reduce trunk call charges by significantly more than would be the case if there were a limit on trunk call charges as such. Does it not therefore allow BT to undercut its competitors?

Mr. Tebbit: Not altogether, because local call charges are in the basket, and are therefore covered in that way.

Mr. Ian Wrigglesworth: Will not the biggest beneficiary of the announcement of the Secretary of State be the Treasury and not the consumer? If the Government had wished to increase competition in telecommunications, why have they not allowed more licences to be given to telecommunications operators in the country in order to benefit consumers? Why have they decided that it should be RPI minus 3 per cent., and not a higher figure which one would have expected by international competitive standards? Will the Secretary of State look at that figure again and see whether it can be brought more in line with international standards overseas?

Mr. Tebbit: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman thinks that there should be less protection for the consumer or more. I do not think that he has been altogether assiduous in his studies of what happens overseas. The greatest beneficiary of the change will be all those who have an interest in the performance of the economy as a whole. British Telecom's performance is an important component in the performance of the economy as a whole. It will be one of our major companies. The better it performs, of course, the better for all of us, so we shall all be beneficiaries.

Mr. John Ward: My right hon. Friend will be aware that many hon. Members have heard with relief his announcement that the privatisation of British Telecom is to go ahead on time. Will he particularly take on board the message that I think has come from both sides of the House that the subscribers should get the chance to subscribe to the shares on preferential terms so that there is the widest possible spread of share ownership?

Mr. Tebbit: I certainly hope that we shall be able to devise schemes that will encourage wider share ownership generally, particularly by telephone subscribers.

Mr. Dave Nellist: Does not the Secretary of State accept that the widest possible share ownership is the public ownership of all working people owning an asset? Will he therefore declare to the House that the real intention behind his complexity of incentives and share deals in this privatisation exercise is to frustrate a future Labour Government from renationalising such a public asset? Will he take it from me that the next Labour Government, and in particular the unions concerned, will ensure that this public asset is renationalised?

Mr. Tebbit: I confess that, on the current performance of the Labour party, I do not lose too much sleep about the prospect of a future Labour Government and I do not think that we need to do so while the hon. Gentleman is part of the team representing the Labour party.
So-called public ownership—state ownership—means that the only people to have any say are politicians and civil servants. I want to give a wider representation than that on the board of directors.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: How does the RPI minus 3 formula compare with the increases charged by British Telecom and its predecessor over, say, the past five or 10 years? Will there be any restrictions on the increase in call box charges?

Mr. Tebbit: The call box charges will not be included in the RPI minus X formula. The performance of BT over the past 10 years is rather less good than RPI minus 3.

Mr. James Wallace: I think that many hon. Members will find the statement as interesting for what it does not say as for what it does say, and will find it astonishing that, after a debate ranging over two parliamentary Sessions and 300 hours, there are still so many vague areas in the details of the flotation. Will the Secretary of State say how much of what appears to be the £5·5 million free equity he intends to float in the late autumn, and the cost to the taxpayer of advertising that flotation?

Mr. Tebbit: We shall float 51 per cent. of the equity in the autumn. We cannot yet assess the cost of that. That will be reported no doubt in the fullness of time. As to any vagueness at this stage after two years, when the hon. Gentleman gives some thought to it I think that he will realise that, until the Bill was enacted, it would have been difficult to commence the negotiations and the discussions on the future capital structure on RPI minus X, and all the other details.

Mr. John Powley: I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend's statement, but does he agree that, alongside a number of other measures introduced by the Government, this is a welcome sign of the return to the hands of the individual of the wealth previously held by the state and that the sure way for BT in future is to respond more readily to the demands of the individual via his shareholding and the amount of use he makes of the company's services?

Mr. Tebbit: I agree completely with my hon. Friend. I extract some mild amusement from the fact that those currently engaged in a campaign to accuse the Government of having authoritarian tendencies and wanting to grab power for Whitehall are among those who wish to keep the corporation in the control of Whitehall, thereby increasing the power of the state. That is what Opposition Back Benchers are interested in.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: When the right hon. Gentleman referred to 51 per cent. of the equity that is to be sold, did he mean 51 per cent. of the £5,500 million? In other words, shares worth £2,750 million will be sold out of the £9,000 million total asset value.

Mr. Tebbit: Not unnaturally, the hon. Gentleman is not quite clear about the figures. The future capital structure of the company will consist of the £2,750 million of Government debentures, of foreign loans and other such


items amounting to £750 million, of preference shares amounting to £750 million, and of ordinary shares and reserves of £4,712 million£a total of £8,962 million. I rounded up the figures for the convenience of the House. Of the equity — which is not £4,712 million as that embraces ordinary shares and reserves—51 per cent. will be sold. We shall have to await a much later stage to see the valuation that is placed on the company.

Mr. Philip Oppenheim: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, of 19 key telephone systems currently about to be approved, no fewer than 13 are manufactured overseas and that even BT is currently considering the distribution of Japanese-made key telephone systems? Is he also aware that many of these systems come from countries such as Belgium, France, West Germany, Japan and Yugoslavia and that British telecommunications manufacturers have absolutely no hope reciprocally of selling in those markets as they are closed to overseas goods?

Mr. Tebbit: I do not agree with all that my hon. Friend says. We had become uncompetitive in a number of these more innovatory areas, and that was due to the monopoly position of the past. There was no incentive to develop these new instruments. Therefore, liberalisation initially means that foreign companies have an advantage. I am confident that British companies can respond to the challenge and that they are doing so already.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall call those hon. Members who have been standing.

Mr. Peter Thurnham: I welcome my right hon. Friend's proposal to offer a voucher scheme to subscribers. Will he confirm that that scheme will be available equally to both private and business users?

Mr. Tebbit: I said that one possible option was a voucher scheme. The details of such a scheme, if we were to take it forward, are not yet fully worked out, but I take note of my hon. Friend's proposition.

Mr. Richard Shepherd: Bearing in mind BT's failure to meet the productivity gains agreed with the last Labour Government and the tremendous productivity gains realised in north America, does not my right hon. Friend think that RPI minus 3 per cent. is far too generous to BT and against the interests of British consumers — domestic, industrial and commercial?

Mr. Tebbit: No, I do not.

Mr. Timothy Wood: I wish to pursue the question of competition and the publication of the licence. I hope that my right hon. Friend will make suitable provision within the licence for appropriate competition and the avoidance of cross-subsidisation and other anti-competitive practices by BT in the future and that such provision will be more effective than that contained in the draft licence.

Mr. Tebbit: I note what my hon. Friend says. It is essential that the competition which BT will suffer or enjoy should be real. That means that the competing companies must be relatively strong. One danger would be a proliferation of small competitors, all of which could

effectively be brushed aside. Until the competing companies grow and strengthen, some difficult licensing problems will have to be dealt with.

Mr. Rob Hayward: I hope that BT employees will welcome my right hon. Friend's announcement as much as hon. Members have done. However, there was no reference to the treatment of pensioners who are former BT employees. I hope that my right hon. Friend will give serious consideration to providing similar facilities for the purchase of shares by pensioners as well as employees, especially current employees of BT who will retire between now and the date of flotation.

Mr. Tebbit: I take note of what my hon. Friend says. He will realise that these are extremely complex matters. I hope that in due course we shall be able to make fuller statements with regard to all pensioners as well as employees.

Mr. Eric Forth: I sympathise with my right hon. Friend's natural desire to protect the consumer through the RPI minus X formula, but is he satisfied that by using that formula sufficient allowance will be made for a privatised BT to maintain its profitability, thereby maintaining the reinvestment in the business which will be necessary to justify the share flotation in the first place?

Mr. Tebbit: Yes. My hon. Friend puts the perfect counterbalance to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd). That perfectly illustrates the way in which one must preserve a balance between the two interests.

Mr. Shore: The right hon. Gentleman's statement was not exactly a model of clarity, as I think he will understand. Things have not been improved by the muddled replies that we have had to a number of questions and to the fact that we are still lacking the licence, for which we have now been pressing for the past 18 months. Is it not clear that call box charges will not be controlled in any way in terms of price limitation and that therefore the consumer can expect an increase in charges? As we predicted, and as the Government in Committee most emphatically denied, rentals for the ordinary domestic telephone user will increase and will be subject not to any price reduction formula but to the formula of RPI plus 2. Will the right hon. Gentleman kindly confirm that that is the case?

Mr. Tebbit: The call box user and telephone users generally will have better protection through the machinery of the Director General of Oftel, to whom complaints may be made about abuse of British Telecom's position. That is a possibility which is open by statute and which was never open in the past.
The right hon. Gentleman must know that in the past there has been no control of rental charges, which have increased quite considerably in real terms in the past. He must accept that the protection which is now offered is better that that which has been available in the past. He says that the price will increase. It may increase, but there is an undertaking by British Telecom, which will be undertaken by British Telecom plc, to exercise some restraint in that area. That is an undertaking that we have not had before.
The fact that the right hon. Gentleman can ask questions at the end of the day on only two comparitively minor matters when set against the whole programme of denationalisation of British Telecom puts his objections into perspective.

Glue Abuse (Prevention)

Mr. Harry Greenway: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require manufacturers of glues for sale to the public to include in them an agent which will render them repellent.
I seek to persuade Parliament to take this first small step to attempt to reduce the number of solvent abusers. Glues are not the only substances that are abused but they are the most commonly used products. I have chosen this course of action rather than any of the alternatives because I consider this to be the most effective and practical way forward.
It seems that glue is regarded as safe to sniff and as causing no lasting damage to the health of the sniffer. That is in contrast with other products that have been seen to cause instant death — for example, aerosols that are squirted directly into the mouth.
Those who treat glue sniffers say that glue is not safe to sniff and that it may well cause long-term injury and even death. However, the attitude to glue among sniffers, and the fact that it is the product used most commonly by them, has persuaded me that we must make glues repellent if we are to make a start in this important area. Alternative courses of action would be no solution to the increasing scale of solvent abuse. To make glue sniffing a criminal offence would lead to enforcement difficulties and would drive more sniffers to secrecy and, thereby, death.
Those who commit offences while high on glue can already be prosecuted under existing legislation. Those who are addicted to glue need as much help as alcoholics or hard drug addicts if they are to kick the habit. They sniff glue to reach a high that is not unlike that received by drinking too much alcohol or taking drugs. I have received several petitions containing many hundreds of signatures, and many letters from head teachers, teachers, parents and youth leaders on this problem. Between 1971 and 1981 there were 169 deaths associated with solvent abuse. In 1981 there were 45, and in 1983 there were 57. I feel sure that these figures give us no more than a minute insight into the scale of the problem.
Some researchers into the numbers who so abuse solvents have produced estimates that show as many as 10 per cent. of the population in any one school may be abusers. That does not apply to all schools but perhaps it applies to the average school. A study by Dr. Gay and his colleagues was reported to a symposium at Guy's hospital in November 1981 that was set up by the National Poisons Information Service. Dr. Gay and his colleagues received reports of 413 known instances of solvent abuse involving 304 young people from a large urban area in the county of Avon during a six-months period. That means that many young lives are to be spoilt and much pain to be caused to many caring families.
The catalogue of causes of death shows how horrific is the problem of solvent abuse. For example, it contains instances of death by asphyxia, by suffocation following the use of plastic bags, by inhalation of vomit, by hanging, by drowning and from multiple injuries. The National Campaign against Solvent Abuse has estimated that 25 per cent. of deaths are caused by the direct effects of these poisonous chemicals upon the liver, kidneys, heart, lungs and brain. Only 10 per cent. of the deaths enumerated are caused by accidents when youngsters are high.
Individual cases have been reported to me of people being left with no minds as a result of solvent abuse. They emerge from prison, for example, having committed offences while under the influence of the vapour which they have inhaled. They are wholly unimproved on leaving prison because their minds have been extinguished by the abuse of solvents. It is extremely serious.
The practice is no respecter of age. Children as young as five years are known solvent abusers, and the majority of abusers are between 14 and 18 years. Older people have been known to abuse solvents, and a man of 31 years recently lost his life because of it. The habit attracts three times as many boys as girls. A youth worker, whom I know well, recalled to me recently the case of a boy whom he is sure is psychologically addicted to solvents. When living in a children's home the boy would steal glue to sniff and the staff had to remove and hide bread wrappers before Jimmy, as I shall call him, could get his hands on them to use as receptacles for the glue that he wanted to sniff. In spite of a bad cough, chest pains, halucinations and a stay in secure accommodation without access to glue, he is now back on glue and extremely ill. He is a young fellow.
I have received various comments on my proposals from the manufacturers of glue. It is evident that little research has been done on possible additives. Certain criteria would need to be met by any additive to repel sniffers. First, if the smell is offensive to the sniffer it must be acceptable to normal users, including those who work in industry who use large or small quantities of glue daily. Secondly, there must be no long-term health hazard to users. Thirdly, it must not cause the sniffer to vomit. As I have already said, inhalation of vomit after sniffing can cause death and is doing so on a wide scale. Fourthly, it must not lose its effectiveness over a period and thus cease to deter abuse. I am certain that it is possible to have satisfactory glue products that would overcome the problem of glue sniffing. Indeed, a breakthrough was made by a Birmingham-based firm only last week.
I applaud the good intentions of those engaged in social work practice, police liaison and social services in Avon and parts of London, for example, and I similarly applaud the efforts of the National Campaign against Solvent Abuse, but I feel that we are fighting a losing battle against a problem which, like Topsy, is growing.
Health education has been pursued by all the bodies that I have mentioned, by Evode Ltd., a glue manufacturer, and by the use of posters in shops. However, with the number of deaths due to solvent abuse rising annually, education has clearly failed. It is time that Parliament acted to prevent this sad and serious problem escalating further. I believe that Government action is imminent as a result of the pressure that I have brought to bear through the Bill and in other ways, and that is warmly to be welcomed.
In a conversation with a distinguished public figure today I learnt that in a reputable store last Saturday he saw a packet of glue sold to a punk rocker aged about 13 or 14 years. When the punk rocker had gone he spoke to the assistant who had sold the glue, who appeared to be a responsible person. He said, "You should not have sold the glue." The assistant replied, "If she wants to kill herself that way, who am Ito stop her?"
Parliament can stand aside from this serious and vexed problem no longer.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Harry Greenway, Mr. Alistair Burt, Mr. John Carlisle, Sir Geoffrey Finsberg, Mr. Michael Hirst, Mr. Sean Hughes, Mr. Charles Kennedy, Mr. David Madel, Mr. Christopher Murphy, Mrs. Elizabeth Peacock, Mr. Reg Prentice and Mr. Roger Stott.

GLUE ABUSE (PREVENTION)

Mr. Harry Greenway accordingly presented a Bill to require manufacturers of glues for sale to the public to include in them an agent which will render them repellent: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 6 July and to be printed. [Bill 165.]

HEALTH AND SOCIAL SECURITY BILL (MONEY) (NO. 2)

Queen's Recommendation have been signified—

Resolved,

That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Health and Social Security Bill, it is expedient to authorise—

(a) any increase attributable to the provisions of that Act in the sums payable under any other Act out of the Consolidated Fund; and
(b) any payment into the Consolidated Fund.—[Mr. Kenneth Clarke.]

Orders of the Day — Health and Social Security Bill

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

New Clause 2

INCREASE IN BORROWING POWERS OF GENERAL PRACTICE FINANCE CORPORATION

'In section 6(3) of the National Health Service Act 1966 (which limits the aggregate amount which may be outstanding in respect of the principle of money borrowed by the General Practice Finance Corporation to £40 million or such greater amount not exceeding £100 million as the Secretary of State may by order specify) for the words "£40 million" and "£100 million" there shall be substituted, respectively, the words "£150 million" and "£250 million" .'.—[Mr. Kenneth Clarke.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Minister for Health (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 61, 71 and 107.

Mr. Clarke: The new clause and consequential amendments are necessary to extend the borrowing limits of the General Practice Finance Corporation to enable it to continue with its valuable work.
The General Practice Finance Corporation is a nonprofit making, entirely self-supporting, independent body controlled by eight members appointed by the Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Social Services. It was established in 1966 with all-party support—which it has retained — to make loans available to family doctors working in the National Health Service to provide and improve surgery accommodation for their patients. There is still great scope for improvement in the accommodation from which doctors are obliged to provide the family doctor service to patients. The loans play a valuable part in ensuring the steady improvement of the quality of the stock. General medical practitioners are independent contractors, responsible for providing surgery premises. The corporation provides one of the most valuable sources of finance for that purpose.
The borrowing powers have been fixed by statute and amended by regulations over the years. They currently stand at £100 million after a decision of the House on a statutory instrument on 9 April. If the corporation continues to receive loan applications at the current rates, the increse to £100 million will allow it only to continue with its activities to about December 1985. The new clause is being introduced to avoid any possibility of the corporation being unable to enter into new business after that date. The new limits will enable the corporation to continue its work well into the 1990s.
As I said when we debated the statutory instrument recently, there has been a review of the corporation, and we have examined that method of financing improvements to the surgeries of family doctors. As a result, my Treasury colleagues and myself are fully satisfied that it is an effective and cost-effective way to enable doctors to carry out those improvements, from which doctors and patients

throughout the country benefit. I commend the new clause and consequential amendments to the House so that that work may continue.

Mr. Frank Dobson: Not starting off as we mean to continue throughout the whole proceedings, it is safe to say that the Opposition welcome the proposal in the new clause. We welcome the extension of funds to the General Practice Finance Corporation, and we recognise the continuing need to improve doctors' premises.
We note that the work of the corporation has been reviewed by the Government. It is a matter of regret that when I asked the Minister to publish the evidence on which they had conducted their review he said that he could not do so because it had been supplied—presumably by the merchant banks in the City—on on a confidential basis. That is understandable because the evidence clearly would embarrass the Government.
In an era in which the DHSS is busily privatising, it appears that it cannot privatise a public sector bank designed to lend money to doctors. That shows that, even at its heart of money lending, the City is incapable of providing money for socially useful purposes such as improving general practitioners' premises. However, it is quite capable of raising money to invest abroad, or in pornography, video nasties or—in deference to the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway)—in glue produced in such a way that it lends itself to glue sniffing. The City can do all that and many other things, but it cannot provide the funds necessary to improve doctors' premises.
That fact was recognised a long time ago, and the Government's review has confirmed it. We welcome the recognition by the extremely ideological Government that there is a public sector function for a public sector bank to continue to provide the funds necessary for doctors.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Despite what the hon. Gentleman said, he sought desperately for and found a slight note of controversy in his comments about the proposal, even though he supported it. In case he misleads himself, I must tell him that private banks have increasingly come into this area in recent years. It is precisely because many doctors were having recourse to borrowing from the bank that we held a review to decide whether there was a continuing role for the corporation. We are satisfied that there is a role for both methods, and that is an advantage to doctors, patients and taxpayers. It shows what a flexible and non-ideological Government we are. The hon. Gentleman should have confined himself to supporting our proposal.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 6

HOLIDAYS FOR PATIENTS ETC.

'(1) The following subsection shall be added after section 5(2A) of the National Health Service Act 1977—

"(2B) The Secretary of State's functions may be permitted outside England and Wales, in so far as they relate—
(a) to holidays for patients;
(b) to the transfer of patients to or from Scotland, Northern Ireland, the Isle of Man or the Channel Islands; or


(c) to the return of patients who have received treatment in England and Wales to countries or territories outside the British Islands.".

(2) The following section shall be added after section 99 of the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978—

99A. The Secretary of State's functions may be performed outside Scotland, in so far as they relate—

(a) to holidays for patients;
(b) to the transfer of patients to or from England, Wales, Northern Ireland, the Isle of Man or the Channel Islands; or
(c) to the return of patients who have received treatment in Scotland to countries or territories outside the British Islands.".'.—[Mr. Kenneth Clarke.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 58, 59, 67 and 111.

Mr. Clarke: I do not believe that there can be any controversy about these proposals. The opportunity is being taken in the Bill to confirm and clarify the legal powers of health authorities and to do certain things that they have been doing for some time, all of which are popular and acceptable. They have not been challenged, but if anybody doubted the legal powers of health authorities to do those things there would be unnecessary controversy. Therefore, I ask the House to support a new clause that would give statutory backing to services that authorities are already providing.
The purpose of the new clause is to extend the Secretary of State's powers—the powers reside in him and are exercised by health authorities as his agents—to provide certain services outside England and Wales. I shall cite the three main examples. The first is to provide transport and other services to transfer patients for treatment within the United Kingdom. Put in straightforward language, it is not unusual for patients to be conveyed by ambulance across the Scottish border into Scotland. I need not labour the point that we need to be sure that there is a legal power to do that so that we do not have to transfer patients between vehicles, or any such nonsense.
Secondly, and more significantly, the new clause will make it clear that health authorities can legally meet some of the costs — especially the costs of escorts — of holidays abroad provided for long-stay hospital patients. In recent years, it has been the practice for mentally handicapped patients to be taken abroad by the staff of their hospitals. That is of benefit to the patients, not least because they can appreciate the improved climate, the sunshine and so on obtained on that holiday.
Most of the cost of such a holiday is usually funded by the patient from savings from social security benefits, which tend to accrue when the patient is in hospital. However, some cost may fall on the health authority, including the cost of escorts and other services. The health authority would have to pay those costs anyway if the patient remained in hospital in this country. The purpose of the new clause is to make it clear that the legal power to meet those costs exists, even when patients are taken abroad.
Thirdly, health authorities occasionally arrange the repatriation of foreign patients who want to return to their home countries. That occurs only when the patient wants to return to the home country and the doctors agree that

that is wise and desirable. It means that the health authority, on behalf of the Secretary of State, can sometimes incur expenditure outside the United Kingdom, and obviously it needs the legal powers to do so.
The remaining amendments are consequential, and. I trust that they and the new clause will receive the support of the House.

Mr. Dobson: Again, the Opposition welcome the propositions in the new clause. In view of his reception at the Royal College of Nursing annual meeting recently, we understand why the Secretary of State fancies getting involved in what Henry IV described as
new broils to be commenced in strands afar remote.
The bulk of people in England and Wales would like the right hon. Gentleman to get on with discharging his functions in those countries.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 7

NORTHERN IRELAND

'(1) An Order in under paragraph 1(1)(b) of Schedule 1 to the Northern Ireland Act 1974 (legislation for Northern Ireland in the interim period) which states that it is made only for purposes to which this section applies—

(a) shall not be subject to paragraph 1(4) and (5) of that Schedule (affirmative resolution of both Houses of Parliament); but
(b) shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House.

(2) The purposes to which subsection (1) above applies are purposes corresponding to those—

(a) of section 1(3), (4) and (6) above;
(b) of section 4(1), (3) and (4) above;
(c) of Part II above; and
(d) of this Part.'—[Dr. Boyson.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Minister for Social Security (Dr. Rhodes Boyson): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It will be convenient at the same time to discuss Government amendments Nos. 11, 18, 23, 60, 66, 69 and 70.

Dr. Boyson: These are technical amendments—the issues with which they are concerned arose towards the end of the Committee stage—aimed at amalgamating the separate enablements contained in clauses 1, 4 and 18 into a single enablement clause. The new clause will ensure that provisions for Northern Ireland corresponding to certain provisions in the Bill can be enacted for Northern Ireland by means of a single Order-in-Council subject to the negative resolution procedure. The other amendments are consequential on the amalgamation of the enablement provisions and provide for the new clause to come into operation on Royal Assent. I do not think that there will be any controversy over this tidying-up provision.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 8

FITTING ETC OF CONTACT LENSES

'(1) The following section shall be inserted after section 20 of the Opticians Act 1958—

"Restrictions on fitting of contact lenses.

20A.—(l) Subject to the following provisions of this section, a person who is not a registered medical practitioner or registered optician shall not fit contact lenses.

(2) The foregoing subsection shall not apply to the fitting of contact lenses by a person recognised by a medical authority as a medical student, if carried out as part of a course of instruction approved by that authority for medical students or as part of an examination so approved.

(3) The General Optical Council may by rules exempt from subsection (1) of this section the fitting of contact lenses by persons training as opticians, or any prescribed class thereof, in such cases and subject to compliance with such conditions as may be prescribed by the rules.

(4) Rules under the last foregoing subsection shall not come into force until approved by order of the Privy Council, and the power to make any such order shall be exercisable by statutory instrument.

(5) Any person who contravenes subsection (1) of this section shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine of an amount not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale, as defined in section 75 of the Criminal Justice Act 1982.".

(2) The following subsections shall be inserted after section 25(3) of that Act—

"(3A) The General Optical Council may make rules specifying requirements which registered opticians, enrolled bodies corporate or employees of registered opticians or enrolled bodies corporate must meet if they are to prescribe, fit or supply contact lenses.

(3B) The power conferred by subsection (3A) above is a power—

(a) in relation to registered opticians or employees of registered opticians or of enrolled bodies corporate, to specify qualifications which they must have, and
(b) in relation to enrolled bodies corporate, to specify conditions which they must satisfy.".' —[Mr. Kenneth Clarke.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It will be convenient to take at the same time Government amendments Nos. 62 and 110.

Mr. Clarke: We come to that part of the law which governs opticians and optical services. I shall not attempt again to introduce a new clause by saying that it cannot have a controversial point; I shall forbear to reply to whatever points the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) contrives to raise on this occasion. However, I believe that the change that we are here making will meet with universal agreement.
As the House will know—no doubt we shall debate this at greater length later in our proceedings — the Government have insisted throughout that the fitting of contact lenses should be carried out only by qualified opticians. As with all our policy, we have sought to reserve to qualified people those things that must be reserved to them so as to safeguard the health of the public, and there has been no controversy over our proposal to do that.
Discussion of this matter has highlighted the fact that the law on the fitting of contact lenses is not satisfactory in every way. The present law provides that they must be sold by, or under the supervision of, a doctor or registered optician, but no requirement is at present placed by the law on who does the prescribing or fitting. We do not have evidence of great problems, but there is no doubt that it is desirable, for the safety and well-being of the patient,

to have the fitting done by somebody properly qualified and to be sure that the qualified person does not merely supervise somebody else.
Therefore, with the full support of the General Optical Council, we propose this new clause, which will restrict the fitting of contact lenses to registered opticians or registered medical practitioners, and we make exceptions only for bona fide medical students and under rules to be made by the GOC in relation to optical students. We also give the GOC power to specify the qualifications that registered opticians must have to prescribe, fit or supply contact lenses, or the conditions which enrolled bodies must specify.
Not every qualified person has the training and experience to deal with the more difficult contact lenses. The General Optical Council may want to take advantage of an explicit power to require specific qualifications for those engaged in prescribing, fitting or supplying this type of lens. The new clause is an added protection for the patient and has the general approval of the opticians' profession and all who follow these matters.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 10

USE OF TITLES

'(1) In section 22 of the Opticians Act 1958 (Penalty for pretending to be registered, etc.) the words "or the title of optometrist" shall be inserted after the words "ophthalmic optician" in subsections (1)(a) and (2)(a).

(2) The following subsections shall be inserted after subsection (1) of that section—

"(1A) On any prosecution for an offence under subsection (1)(b) of this section the use of the title of optician by a person to whom this subsection applies is to be taken to imply that he is registered in one of the registers, but the implication may be rebutted if the defendant proves that he used the title in circumstances where it would not have been reasonable for people to believe, in consequence of his use of it, that he was in fact registered in one of the registers.

(1B) Subject to the following subsection, subsection (1A) of this section applies to a person who carries on the business—

(a) of selling optical appliances; or
(b) of supplying optical appliances in pursuance of arrangements made as mentioned in section 21(2) of this Act.

(1C) Subsection (1A) of this section does not apply to a person who sells or supplies optical appliances only as mentioned in section (21)(3)(a) to (e) of this Act".

(3) The following subsections shall be inserted after subsection (2) of that section—

"(2A) On any prosecution for an offence under subsection (2)(b) of this section the use of the title of optician by a body corporate to which this subsection applies is to be taken to imply that it is enrolled in one of the lists, but the implication may be rebutted if the body corporate proves that it used the title in circumstances where it would not have been reasonable for people to believe, in consequence of its use of it, that it was in fact enrolled in either of the lists.

(2B) Subject to the following subsection, subsection (2A) of this section applies to a body corporate which carries on the business—

(a) of selling optical appliances; or
(b) of supplying optical appliances in pursuance of arrangements made as mentioned in section 21(2) of this Act.

(2C) Subsection (2A) of this section does not apply to a body corporate which sells or supplies optical appliances only as mentioned in section 21(3)(a) to (e) of this Act.".' —[Mr. Kenneth Clarke.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It will be convenient to take at the same time new clause 5—Use of the term 'optician'—
'The following paragraph shall be inserted after section 2 of the Opticians Act 1958:
"(3A) Any individual who takes the title of optician when he is not registered on one of the General Optical Council's registers, or who takes or uses any name, title, addition or description falsely implying, or otherwise pretends, that he is registered in any of the registers shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £500.".'.
and Government amendment No. 63.

Mr. Clarke: The new clause extends the protection of title given to people with particular qualifications. That means that only people who are qualified to describe themselves as professionals of a particular sort may hold themselves out to the general public as qualified. No doubt we shall come on to the mainstream of policy in due course.
The Government are proposing that in those cases where there is absolutely no health risk to the patient, non-qualified people may be able to dispense and sell spectacles. The Government's case rests in part on the proposition that an adult person should be left free to decide for himself whether he wants to take advantage of the services of someone who is fully qualified or whether he wishes to avail himself of the services of someone who is not professionally qualified but who might provide him with a cheaper or more convenient service.
If we are relying on consumer choice, obviously the consumer must know with whom he is dealing; we do not want to enable people to be deceived by non-qualified people who might hold themselves out as registered or qualified. Therefore, we have strengthened the law from the point of view of the title "optician" and propose to extend the law to the title "optometrist", which is increasingly being used by those who, in the past, have been known in this country largely as opthalmic opticians.
I shall not take the House through the drafting of the new clause unless hon. Members wish me to do so. I shall simply explain the three basic principles that we have adopted. First, we have endeavoured to ensure that the public will not be led into believing that they are dealing with a qualified person when they are not. Secondly, we have tried to avoid undue restriction on the use of the word "optician" as a common description of someone selling glasses. Thirdly, we have sought to safeguard those people and bodies who traditionally have described themselves as optician, for example, manufacturing opticians, which is a well-known title in the profession but which does not always imply a qualified person.
We have met the first requirement — that of protecting the public against people posing as being qualified—by making the use of the title "optician", when a sale is being made to the public, carry the implication that the person is holding himself out as registered when he uses that title.
We have met the second requirement by allowing it to be a defence to prove that in the circumstances in which the title was used it was not reasonable to imply registration. That means that somebody who carefully

describes himself to the public as, say, an unregistered or unqualified optician cannot be prosecuted because the word "optician" appears in such a context.
We have met the third requirement by excluding its use in connection with sales other than to the public. Somebody who supplies glasses only to registered opticians or dealers in optical appliances would be able to describe himself, for example, as an optician because it is in the usual colloquial use of that word that such people have always described themselves as opticians.
We discussed this matter at length in Committee. I was pressed by Opposition Members and by some of my hon. Friends, including my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight), to tighten up the law in this area, and the new clause is the Government's endeavour to fulfil our commitment to do that.

Mr. Dobson: We welcome what the Government have done to tighten up the law on the use of the title "optician." As the Minister said, the new clause appears to meet the points that were made in Committee by Conservative and Labour Members and adds an additional measure of protection not only for the profession but, more particularly, for patients when buying glasses.
This additional protection in relation to the word "optician" will be more important in the future than it has been in the past if the Government's other proposition, to get rid of the requirement that everyone who dispenses glasses should have a professional qualification, goes through.

Mr. Michael Meadowcroft: The new clause covers the same ground as new clause 4, which was tabled by my hon. Friends and myself. It is somewhat longer. I take the points made by the Minister as to the reason for covering more ground and giving more detail. The crucial point is that in the light of the earlier debate, and the Committee proceedings, the Government's proposals give the game away. The Minister said that the Government wish to give the consumer choice; then, if the word "optician" is to be registered it is suggested that someone who goes to a person who carries that name wants higher grade service.
I know that we shall come later to the nub of the debate about practising and about who can dispense but there is a problem if someone has to exercise consumer choice. It is a shame if there is economic pressure because people may not be able to exercise their choice freely. Obviously I welcome the new clause because it is similar to new clause 4 that was tabled on the same topic. There seems to have been a strange coincidence; I do not want to use a post hoc ergo propter hoc argument, but the Government's new clause appeared a few days after new clause 4 was tabled.
I am glad that the Government have recognised the force of the argument in new clause 4 and I only hope that they will show the same interest in other amendments proposed by my hon. Friends on the Liberal and Social Democratic Benches.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 11

DISCIPLINARY PROVISIONS

'Schedule [Disciplinary provisions] to this Act—

(a) Part I of which inserts new sections in the Opticians Act 1958 giving the Disciplinary Committee of the General Optical Council power—

(i) to suspend the registration of a registered optician or the enrolment of a body corporate carrying on business as an opthalmic optician or a dispensing optician instead of erasing the name of the registered optician or the body corporate from the register or list; and 
(ii) to impose financial penalties on registered opticians and on such bodies corporate instead of or in addition to erasure or suspension; and

(b) Part II of which makes minor and consequential amendments to that Act in connection with the disciplinary powers of the Committee,

shall have effect.'.—[Mr. Kenneth Clarke.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this new clause it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 64, 103 and 109.

Mr. Clarke: The new clause, the new schedule and the other amendments will update and expand the disciplinary powers of the General Optical Council. The GOC is an independent, professional body which governs the affairs of a self-governing profession. Of course, its disciplinary powers are among its most important functions and one of the main protections for the public when dealing with a registered and qualified man or woman. For some time, the GOC has wished to have this updating of its disciplinary powers. When we were discussing the matter in Standing Committee I promised that we would produce a new clause to comply with its wishes as soon as the drafting was finalised.
The new clause and the amendments, which contain a full schedule, probably look voluminous. I should explain to the House that we have decided that the best way to tackle this is to put into the Bill a new schedule which, in effect, sets out in full all the disciplinary powers of the General Optical Council. Most of it restates the present position and only certain changes have been made to the powers. Had we merely amended the previous legislation, it would have been difficult for people in future because they would have had to jump about to find the full extent of the disciplinary powers.
Therefore, I propose only to tell the House of the main changes that the package will produce. First, it will enable the GOC to suspend registration or enrolment for up to 12 months. At the moment the powers of the GOC are restricted to striking off or doing nothing about the registration of someone against whom a complaint has been made. Suspension as an intermediary penalty is something that should be available to the council because it is available to other professional bodies when dealing with their members.
The new clause also gives the council power to impose a financial penalty of up to £1,000 on registered opticians or enrolled bodies corporate. That again gives the council more flexibility to apply suitable penalties when unprofessional conduct is being dealt with.
The GOC is being given a new power to discipline the registered optician directors of enrolled bodies corporate where such a body had itself been disciplined. It will also have a new power to replace the phrase:
infamous conduct in any professional respect
by the phrase "serious professional misconduct". That is merely a less archaic description of the kind of things that professionals occasionally get up to which result in their being brought before their professional council.
The final change is to allow the use of recorded delivery in place of registered post. I cannot understand why that was not allowed before. I am sure the House will welcome the fact that the GOC will be allowed to use recorded delivery.
I hope that the House will support the whole body of changes.

Mr. Dobson: Once again, I should like briefly to welcome the new clause that the Government are moving and the associated amendments because these cover matters that my hon. Friends and I and hon. Members on the Government side requested. Before we incorporate the new clause in the Bill, I should be grateful if the Minister would confirm that it has the full support of all professional bodies. It is my understanding that it has.
Also, in fairness to the Minister's officials whom I, from time to time, legitimately criticised in Committee about the convoluted nature of some of the proposals that were put before us, I welcome their undoubted initiative and the Minister's endorsement of that initiative in providing changes in the disciplinary powers in regard to opticians by way of one schedule instead of putting forward half a dozen changes which would have made it difficult for ordinary people to follow. I should like to thank them and the Minister for meeting the undertakings the Minister gave in Committee.

Mrs. Jill Knight: Can my hon. and learned Friend confirm two points before we conclude this brief debate? First, it is extremely rare for the GOC to have to deal with complaints about opticians. It is important to get that on the record because it might be assumed that complaints against opticians rain down on the desk of the GOC weekly or even daily.
Secondly, can he confirm that nothing in the new clause will give the GOC power to discipline those who are not members of the ophthalmic profession but who, under the Bill, will be dispensing glasses? If such people misbehave and do not carry out their job properly, appropriately and efficiently, am I right in thinking that even this new clause gives the GOC no power to deal with them?

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I thank the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) on behalf of the Department for the thanks that he gave to my officials. Certainly the new clause has the support of the General Optical Council and, so far as we are aware, there is no one anywhere against it. We are not aware of any professional opinion opposing it.
I confirm both statements of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight). When a profession is self-governing, its professional body needs strong disciplinary powers. The existence of those powers is one of the best reassurances of protection for the public. The body may not have to use them often. The General Optical Council does not have to deal with


numerous cases of unprofessional conduct, and there is no reason to think that it will have great need for these powers in future.
People who are not registered and not professionally qualified do not fall within the jurisdiction of the General Optical Council. Therefore, people who are not registered opticians cannot be taken before the General Optical Council on any disciplinary matter. This goes back almost to the point made by the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Meadowcroft) a few moments ago. Of course, there is a difference between a professional person who is
offering a service to the public and someone who is not a professional. The professional person is offering both qualifications and the back-up of his professional body, which will discipline him if he behaves in an unprofessional way.
What the Government are saying is that only people who offer qualifications should be allowed to describe themselves in such a way as to imply that they are registered opticians. Then the public—the patient or the customer—is free to choose whether he goes to a qualified professional man or, for some reason, to an unqualified man. The customer will have to make his own decision as to which he prefers. That is what happens in practically every walk of life. Only opticians had the complete legal protection of their monopoly until the Government produced the Bill. We do not stop people going for treatment for illness to other than doctors. One may go to an osteopath, a herbalist or to whomever he likes, so long as that person does not describe himself as a doctor. We are putting opticians on the same footing.
5 pm
The powers of the General Optical Council are not often used to deal with consumer complaints. My hon. Friend the Member for Edgbaston has in mind the person who finds that his glasses are less than satisfactory. It is rare for such a patient to go through the process that would take a complaint to the GOC. The GOC deals with unprofessional conduct, most of which is of other kinds. Consumer redress is obtainable in the same way as it is when dealing with any product. The day-to-day remedies are indistinguishable in relation to the professional and non-professional person. I am glad that my hon. Friend, like everybody else, wants the GOC to have the powers in the new clause.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 1

SUPPLY OF SPECTACLES TO PENSIONERS

'All retirement pensioners shall be entitled to purchase lenses and frames under the provisions of the General Optical Service.'.—[Mr. Dobson.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Dobson: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following: New clause 4—Concessions for registered partially sighted people and for old age pensioners—
'The following paragraph shall be inserted after paragraph 2 subparagraph (1) of Schedule 12 to the National Health Service Act 1977:
2A.—It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to provide by regulations for payments to be made by him or

by any authority established under this Act to meet, or to contribute towards, the cost incurred (whether by way of charge under this Act or otherwise) for the supply of optical appliances for which a prescription has been given in consequence of a testing of sight under this Act—

(a) for any person who is on the blind or partially sighted register; or
(b) who is an old age pensioner.".'.

Amendment No. 10, in clause 1, page 3, line 27, at end insert—

(5A) Subsections (3), (4) and (5) of this section shall not have effect until two years after subsections (1) and (2) of this section have come into effect, and then only if the price of identical lenses and glasses supplied outside the general optical service has fallen below those charges set out in the National Health Service (Dental and Optical Charges) Amendment Regulations 1984 (S.I. 1984, No. 229) and the National Health Service (Dental and Optical Charges) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 1984 (5.1. No. 292). ' .

Mr. Dobson: I should like to think that we could continue our non-controversial consideration of new clauses, but I doubt whether I shall carry all Members on the Government Benches with me on new clause 1 and amendment No. 10.
The Bill provides for the abolition of the right to buy National Health Service spectacles. We believe that that is wrong in principle, that it will be bad in practice and that it will prove unpopular.
We suspect that the Government also thought that the idea would prove unpopular because when the Secretary of State announced changes in the law relating to opticians it covered 68 lines in Hansard and only one line referred to the abolition of people's right to buy NHS spectacles. The provision affects 3·2 million people a year.
The Secretary of State followed up that furtive approach by playing down the provision at a press conference the same day. When he publicised the Bill, he issued a press statement outlining its provisions, the main body of which did not even refer to the abolition of the NHS supply. Mention of it appeared in an appendix to the press statement. I do not think that the Secretary of State is particularly proud of the provision.
Many people at present freely opt to buy NHS lenses or frames, or a combination of the two. They buy them because they are the cheapest, top-quality goods on the market. There is no logical justification for the abolition of the right to buy cheap top-quality goods.
The Government say that the remaining provisions relating to opticians are based on the Office of Fair Trading report. I and many others question the arguments in that report. We are not in a position to question the Office of Fair Trading's assertions about what would happen if the NHS supply were abolished because it never considered that aspect. It is hard to justify basing changes on a report which did not consider what would happen if people buying at the cheapest end of the market could not do so any longer.
Originally the Government claimed that they had the support of the Consumers Association and the National Consumer Council for their propositions. They cannot claim that now because both bodies have expressed severe doubts about what is likely to happen to the glasses market if the NHS supply is no longer available.
On Second Reading I asked the Minister for Health if he could give one example in economic history of the cheapest, top-quality goods—NHS lenses have 80 per cent. of the market—being taken off the market and the average price being reduced as a result. Needless to say,


the right hon. and learned Gentleman has not come up with an example. If he did, he would destroy the whole basis of market economics for ever.
I also asked the Office of Fair Trading, on which the Minister chooses to rely so often, whether in its databank of economic activities and historic facts it could find an example of the cheapest top-quality goods being taken off the market and the general price being reduced. Needless to say, it has not been able to do that. It gave me a rather trivial and unsatisfactory reply. As most in the profession would agree, that is on a par with the appendix to the Office of Fair Trading report on opticians generally which was rather shoddy.
The Government argue that, faced with the genuine problem of private sector glasses and their high price, they should get rid of cheap, public sector glasses. It is difficult to understand the logic of that. It is useful to remind the House of the differences between NHS prices and the average private sector prices.
NHS frames cost between £2·5 and £13·5. Prices were not increased in the last round of dental and optical increases in March. There is no complaint that NHS prices are too high. NHS single vision lenses, since the recent increases, cost between £4·20 and £9·45. NHS bifocals cost between £12·25 and £16·50. I have not heard any complaints about those prices. The average price of a pair of old-fashioned styled single vision glasses supplied by the private sector is £43. It costs £57 for a pair of old-fashioned private sector bifocals. The price of private sector glasses is not likely to come down if the low-priced NHS glasses are removed from the market.
I have received a letter, from which I have been given permission to quote, about the likely effects of the disappearance of the NHS supply. The letter is not from someone whom the Minister can say has a vested interest. The Minister usually dismisses opticians because they have a vested interest. The letter is from the ophthalmic optician at the low vision clinic at St. Thomas's hospital. She has no vested interest. She sells nothing. She exercises her skill in an effort to benefit people with extremely low vision at that great teaching hospital.
The letter reads:
In the low vision clinic we prescribe many types of aids for those with reduced visual acuity, including complicated spectacle prescriptions, telescopic and magnifying lenses. These aids are at present provided either free of charge or carry a large subsidy under the hospital eye service.
Should the Minister make changes in this system the patient will be faced with the prospect of charges for these aids which may cost anything from £80 to £100. The patients include a vast majority of elderly people, many of whom, although by no means all, are registered as blind or partially sighted.
Is it right that such people are to be denied the ability to read their correspondence, to live relatively independent lives and the possibility of employment because they are unable to afford the aids which would enable them to do so?
Those are extremely cogent points and are better than any that I attempted to make in Committee.
The Opposition believe that the measure will prove as harmful in practice as that ophthalmic optician suggested. However, we also object to the measure in principle because it is the first erosion of the right for anyone to obtain NHS services, whatever his income. If the House does not accept the new clauses and the amendment, only those aged under 16, those aged between 16 and 19 and in full-time education, and those whom the Government

would define as the statutory poor will be entitled to obtain NHS glasses. Everyone else will be expected to buy them in the private market. The next logical step would be to say that only the poor should be entitled to obtain NHS prescriptions and that others should pay the full price for whatever pharmaceutical product they need after they have received a prescription from the doctor. One saw signs of that thinking in last week's debate on Health Service charges, although not from the Government Front Bench. However, the minds of some Conservative Back-Bench Members were clearly moving in that direction.
We oppose this measure because it is a retrograde step. We do not believe, on the strength of what happened on Second Reading and in Committee, that we can stop the Government carrying out this damaging attack on the principles of the National Health Service, so new clause 1 and amendment No. 10—and I suspect new clause 4, which is proposed by the alliance—are only damage-limitation clauses.
Amendment No. 10 seeks to delay the abolition of the right to buy NHS glasses until two years have elapsed from the commencement of the abolition of opticians' monopoly to supply glasses. The amendment also provides that the abolition of the NHS supply will occur only if, as a result of the other changes in the Bill, the price of comparable glasses in the private sector falls below the price of NHS glasses as fixed by the House last week. I cannot see how the Government can reject that proposition. If they are confident that the extended competition will reduce the price of spectacles, they should allow this test to be carried out. They should be happy to see how the market moves after two years and, if it has moved so that private glasses are cheaper than NHS glasses, they can go ahead with the abolition of the NHS supply.
The revenue accruing to the Government from this proposal—about £17 million—is trivial compared with the total budget of the NHS of £15,000 million. If the Government urge their Back-Bench Members to reject amendment No. 10 they will be asking them to pass a vote of no confidence in the principles and practice of the remainder of the Bill. They will be saying that they are not confident that the price of private glasses will fall below the price of NHS glasses. If they are not so confident, in effect they are saying that they will abolish the NHS supply not because they are confident that glasses will become cheaper but because they want to save £17 million and they do not care whether prices fall.
To be fair, I should say that the Government propose that some groups—youngsters aged under 16, students in full-time education aged between 16 and 19 and people receiving supplementary benefit—should continue to have the right to buy NHS glasses. However, those groups amount to only 35 per cent. of those who buy spectacles. The most important group who will be excluded from the continued right to obtain NHS glasses will be retirement pensioners.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: The hon. Gentleman is implying that National Health Service frames and lenses are being withdrawn from the market. There is no question of their being withdrawn from the market, because so long as public demand for them exists I assume that they will be manufactured and will be available for sale to the public. We are withdrawing the, for most people, small


subsidy that is available to all patients who choose that range of glasses. If the hon. Gentleman was about to suggest that pensioners should be entitled to free glasses or to reduced-price glasses, as is the Liberal party in its new clause, I must remind the House that that has never been the case. We have never had special arrangements for pensioners, so I do not understand the hon. Gentleman's point.

Mr. Dobson: At times the Minister loses touch with reality, and I say that as one of his admirers. As he knows, one problem with the high price of private spectacles is that some rogue opticians who are trying to make more money than they should have managed to persuade people, who have a statutory right to buy NHS glasses, that none were available. Does he believe that profiteering opticians, especially the new ones whom he is bringing into the optical market, will say to patients, "You can have these cheap supplies if you want them"? Of course not. The new entrants into this market will wish only to make money, not to provide a service.
The Minister is a member of a party that claims to be in contact with industry. He should invite representatives of the optical manufacturing industries to speak to him. For years they have geared their production to producing, in large quantities and at low prices, glasses for the NHS. They know that the market for NHS glasses will disappear. That is why so many of them are perturbed and expect massive layoffs in manufacturing firms that can no longer compete in a confused and difficult market.
The Minister says that there will be cheaper glasses. The Opposition have always accepted that some of the plainest and simplest glasses may reduce the price. They will have to reduce a great deal to become cheaper than NHS glasses. We have all also said, and will continue to say, that complicated glasses or even glasses of average complication are likely to increase rather than reduce in price. We firmly believe that we should maintain the NHS supply to everyone.
Pensioners receive free prescriptions. They do not receive free glasses, although when the Leader of the House answered a question on the subject he was plainly under the misapprehension, as are many of the public—excluding pensioners — and many Conservative Members, that pensioners receive free glasses. They do not. They need to be protected from the likely price rises.
Pensioners will be more affected than most people because of the effects of age. Older people generally have worse eyesight than when they were younger. Generally they need stronger and more complicated lenses than they did in their younger days. Old people's eyesight deteriorates quicker and therefore they need new and more complicated glasses more often. They need special glasses more often than younger people for the post-operative period. They should be entitled to continue to buy NHS glasses, which the Minister wishes to deny them, or, better still, they should be entitled to receive free glasses.
I give one or two examples of what is likely to happen to the price of glasses that pensioners may wish to buy. Thames Television, not so far as I know an outpost of the Labour party even if it is located in my constituency, did a survey of how much a patient would have to pay for a pair of post-glaucoma operation spectacles. It found that in the NHS a woman would have to pay £11·35, but if she went to the private sector the same day for that product she would have to pay £46·40. I suggest that that is a

substantial difference. In another case it found that NHS glasses would have cost £22 while the private alternative would have cost £80. In the face of such increases, pensioners need to be protected from the Bill's provisions.
It is rumoured—no one has said anything formally as far as I know—by the aficionados of health in the Press Gallery and the bars and tea rooms behind it that the Government are thinking of making a concession for people or pensioners who need complicated lenses. It is suggested that the Government are contemplating free glasses or possibly glasses at a reduced price. Hardship springs not just from cost but from the means of the people involved. It is a combination of two factors. A sliding scale which will cope with the complication and possible expense of lenses and with the scale of income is likely to prove a bureaucratic nightmare and pensioners will be the least able to understand the sliding scale.
In our new clause and amendment we are asking for clear entitlements. We believe that optical services should be free to all pensioners and to all blind and partially-sighted people. We regard our proposal as a containment operation. That is second best compared to maintaining the principle that the Government are seeking to erode. We want to see continued, and are determined to reintroduce it if the Government remove it from the system, the principle that everyone should be entitled to obtain NHS glasses which year in and year out, good years and bad, have proved to be the cheapest and best on the market and about which the only criticism has been the design of some of the frames.
We should stick with what we have. We have the best system in western Europe. It has produced the cheapest glasses in western Europe. The Government's proposals are wholly retrograde. I hope that some Conservative Members will come into the Lobby with us to protect people, particularly pensioners, from what the Government are doing.

Mrs. Jill Knight: There has been some confusion about NHS glasses that I should like to clear up. With the greatest respect, I advise my right hon. and learned Friend that he should not tell people that NHS glasses will continue to be provided, because they will not. While they may be available to be bought, they will not be available to the patient as they presently are. There must be no confusion about that. The only people who will be entitled to NHS glasses at the present rates will be children or people on supplementary benefit. Everyone else will have to buy on the open market.

Mr. Meadowcroft: Will the hon. Lady spell that out a little further? As I understand it, there is, rightly, a subsidy towards the provision of some of the NHS lenses. Is the hon. Lady saying that the difference between what she is suggesting and what the Minister said is that that subsidy will no longer be available?

Mrs. Knight: It is wider than that. Although it is an extremely complicated matter, I was trying, partly because of time, but mainly for clarity, to make the position plain to all hon. Members. There are subsidies at the moment and they will be withdrawn. As the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) said, NHS glasses at present are the best buy. They are the cheapest for the quality in the world. No one can touch us. They will no longer be available at the same rate. Let there be no doubt about that.
The reason why NHS glasses are such a good buy is that ophthalmic opticians provide them at cost. They make no profit on NHS glasses. For years, ophthalmic opticians in business have had to subsidise the provision of NHS glasses by charging more for private frames. Anyone who believes that after the Bill goes through opticians will be able, without the subsidy, to provide the same glasses at the same price I am afraid is misleading himself.
I cannot possibly support the hon. Member. I shall support the Government if we vote on new clause 1 because, although he spoke ingeniously, he mixed two different major points. One of them is that elderly people need glasses and often require glasses of greater strength. That is true in relation to glaucoma, when special glasses will perhaps need to be used for a short time after operations. It is untrue, however, that all ladies over 60 and all gentlemen over 65 are so poor that they cannot afford to pay the right price for their glasses. That fact must be clearly established.
5.30 pm
I find it unacceptable that some hon. Members, who should be able to pay the true cost of their spectacles, can wear NHS spectacles that we all pay for. It is nonsense to suppose that we should spend scarce taxpayers' money on people who can well afford to pay for what they need, especially from the Health Service. It is extraordinary that people are unable or unwilling to pay for their health adjuncts. That should be said clearly.
It is true also that many elderly people have an income that is just about at the level of supplementary benefit. They will no longer be able to get NHS glasses at the present cost. My right hon. and learned Friend is well aware of that. He takes on board what is being said and, indeed, wrote to me recently on the matter. I agree with him. He said:
The group which concerns me is those who need expensive lenses but whose relatively modest income excludes them from getting free or reduced cost glasses under the present arrangements. That is the problem I agreed to address in Committee.
He went on to say that his objective was to find a way to help them without subsidising those who are well able to pay for their glasses. That is sensible and shows that my right hon. and learned Friend is well aware of the problem. He will not give public money to make articles artificially cheap for those who can afford to pay the right price, but he seeks to help those who need special glasses but who cannot afford them.
I pay tribute to my right hon. and learned Friend for his efforts. We shall deal with them later. At present—I know exactly what the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) was referring to when he spoke of his worry — we do not really know whether the Government help will be 2p or £20. It is uncertain because of the wide drafting of the new clause. We need to make that clear. However, although I warmly support his views on the matter, I cannot support the new clause or the others that we are debating with it.

Mr. Meadowcroft: If the Bill is passed unamended, elderly people will be entitled to NHS glasses only if they receive supplementary benefit, which is an inadequate provision. About 2 million elderly people out of 9·5 million pensioners receive supplementary benefit, but there are many more whose incomes are just above

supplementary benefit level. It is common knowledge that many older people who are entitled to benefits do not claim them, and they in particular will suffer.
The record shows that many old people are concerned about the matter, as 75 per cent. of registered blind and partially sighted people are over 65 years old, and 27 per cent. of all elderly people have some visual impairment. It is also the case that about 14 per cent. of older people have substandard vision, which can often be corrected by glasses. If the Bill goes through in its present form, old people with visual impairment might be deterred from seeking help to correct their sight.
The Minister was faced with this problem recently when he answered questions put to him in a Radio 4 programme on 4 April. He and an optician spoke in the "You and Yours" programme. He said:
The vast majority of consumers, and that includes the vast majority of pensioners, will benefit from the changes we are making.
By accepting that the provision would affect the majority of pensioners, he clearly accepts that the minority will not benefit from the proposals. In the new clause we are dealing with the most vulnerable section of that minority. If we are to believe the Minister, that minority includes those who need very complex lenses, such as old people who are recovering fom cataract operations, who need to change their prescriptions frequently. The new clause is concerned mainly with those people.
The Minister said in an earlier debate that he intended to assist those who needed very complex lenses, when the differential between the NHS price and the actual cost was especially marked. However, so far as I know there is nothing in the Bill that would carry out his promise.
A little later in the same Radio 4 broadcast, the Minister was phoned by an elderly person who said that she could not afford to buy a new pair of trifocal lenses. The Minister's reply deserves close scrutiny. He said:
She is amongst a small group who might need some help and for whom we are trying to devise a method to cover. There were a very small number of patients, and it really is a tiny proportion, who require glasses that are intrinsically very expensive. Trifocals sound expensive to me; our optician guest would know better than I do. If she is not much above the supplementary pension level she might have difficulty in affording it and we have said that we are going to try to find a way in which we can give additional help for those people.
The logic of the position was set out by the Minister in his reply to the questioner. If he is sincere in accepting that a small group of people need help, he and his hon. Friends should support the new clause.
The Minister's final sentence makes the case for us. Those on the partially sighted register and the elderly are likely to be within the "very small number" referred to by the Minister. The new clause provides a straightforward and effective way to help them. The clear upshot is that, even by the Minister's own admission, people will suffer if the new clause is not passed. They will suffer medically if, because of their concern at the cost, they do not seek glasses. They will suffer financially because they cannot afford the higher price.
Going beyond the Minister's admission, I suspect that the "very small" category to which he referred will be fairly large. The Minister's argument, which is acceptable on its own terms, is that competition and choice will bring down prices. That may be true in the case of simple lenses. That is why my colleagues and I support allowing opticians to advertise. However, if competition and choice are such panaceas, what damage could it do the


Government for them to leave in place the NHS safety net? If people could buy gold-rimmed, diamond-encrusted trifocal glasses privately at the same price as NHS glasses, no doubt they would do so. As they cannot, the safety net would cost nothing.
The abolition of the NHS provision will cause serious hardship. The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) read a quotation from yesterday's television programme in which the marked difference between the two prices was shown to be from £11 to £46 in one case and between £22 and £80 in another. I can see no way in which the competition and freedom of choice promoted by the Bill will bring the prices of complex lenses down to anything like the NHS level. By the nature of the specific requirements of those lenses there can be few, if any, economies of scale.
I should like to commend our new clause to the House in preference to that in the name of the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras as our new clause extends not only to the elderly but to people on the partially sighted register. There is an overlap between the two categories, but there will remain a significant number of people below pension age who are on the register and could suffer the same hardship. One example is the people whom I mentioned before — those recovering from cataract operations.
Commenting in advance on the new clause, the Minister referred to its sweeping provisions that appeared to offer free provision for all. It is worded to enable that to happen, by regulation, if that is wished. It enables subsidies to be paid if the Minister wishes to do so by regulation.
I say to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight) that people pay differentially for their spectacles through tax. There is no way that one can get round the fact that the whole point of the National Health Service is not to penalise people at the point of need, but to endeavour to make people pay when, in theory, they are better able so to do. To suggest that we can charge more to those who can afford it simply because they have a physical need for more expensive spectacles flies in the face of the principle of the NHS.
It is the opinion of myself and my hon. Friends that incorporating the new clause will plug a gap in an exceptionally leaky Bill. It should ease some of the Minister's anxieties.

Mr. Roy Galley: My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight) identified the central concern in the Bill, and I support her.
The Bill gives considerable protection to those on low incomes. The new clauses are too widely drawn. As my hon. Friend said, they would not lead to the optimum use of resources in the Health Service. I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister will take on board this point about those just above supplementary benefit and low income levels who are visually handicapped. I use the words "visually handicapped" advisedly and do not, as did the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Meadowcroft), refer to those on the blind or partially sighted register. I believe that the definition goes wider than that. That is a great weakness in the new clause proposed by the hon. Gentleman.
I sincerely hope that before the debate is completed my right hon. and learned Friend can give us some fairly clear assurances about the steps that he proposes to take to assist

those who are visually handicapped, who need frequent changes of complex spectacles and whose incomes are not substantial. Many opticians accept that the general price of spectacles will go down as a result of the Bill. The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) may not be confident of that, but when an optician writes to hon. Members and predicts a 30 per cent. fall in the price of spectacles I believe that we can have considerable confidence.
Nevertheless, there is an element of doubt about bifocal and multifocal lenses. There is genuine concern on Conservative as well as Opposition Benches. I hope very much that my right hon. and learned Friend will take ghat point on board and give us some clear assurances tonight, if possible, on what he proposes to do.

Mr. Jim Craigen: I support the new clause moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson).
Before the parliamentary boundary changes were made last year, the Possilpark blindcraft workshop was in my constituency. I have taken considerable interest in the affairs of the National League of the Blind. Recently the Scottish secretary of the league, Tom Watson, said chat more people will enter into the world of darkness if the legislation is passed. It will have a damaging effect on general optical provision in the country. Generally, we have been improving the level of optics, which is to our credit. It would be most unfortunate if the message tapped out by my hon. Friend in relation to the new clause were not accepted.
It is a fact that two thirds of old-age pensioners do not receive supplementary benefit. I am particularly concerned not with those to whom the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight) referred, who have a penny or two in the bank, but with the great number who do not qualify for supplementary benefit and still have a real financial problem. The pressure to buy cheaply will be paid for dearly in terms of poorer eyesight in the long term.
I hope that the point behind the new clause will be accepted. The hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Meadowcroft) referred to the partially sighted. I believe that our new clause 20 to some extent covers the concern that he expressed about the partially sighted. We should strengthen the availability of services such as eye testing for old-age pensioners, because there is no doubt that more such people are dependent on their eyesight for many activities. Opticians rightly realise that they have to spend a little more time when the average old-age pensioner comes in for a test. If fly-by-night people move into this area, the advances that have been made under both Governments, in raising the level of services, will be seriously knocked back, and we shall pay a heavy price in the long term.

Mr. Michael Morris: I have not previously spoken on the Bill, but I have watched with great care what has been going on and, like most hon. Members, have received a volume of correspondence from opticians in my constituency. I have to tread particularly carefully as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight) is a constituent of mine.
I should like to pick up a couple of points about the market that seem not to have been fairly adjudged. One


should recognise that the very existence of NHS spectacles and the pricing of them has prevented any manufacturer from going into that end of the market. No one would ever consider producing an inexpensive range of glasses at the moment because they know that one is provided by the state. However, if one removes that provision by the state, there is an opportunity. I hope that the logic of that argument is irrefutable. If one removes the NHS provision, there is a gap.
The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) would argue that, because all manufacturers are capitalist rogues, no one would produce an inexpensive range of spectacle frames. However, I suggest that all the experience of over-the-counter medicine shows that major multiple chains of chemists—it is reported that they may come into this market—are the envy of the western world. Some 50 per cent. of the chemists' market is controlled by Boots. Not one hon. Member would criticise the service that Boots provides, not just in dispensing but in the whole range of medicines available to the general public. It is inconceivable that if Boots decided to produce glasses it would offer to the public merchandise that was not of a very high standard. Perhaps there would be a difference in that the materials used in the manufacture of inexpensive spectacles would be cheaper than those for the middle price range.
Therefore, there seems to be a lack of logic in the hon. Gentleman's argument. There is every likelihood that an inexpensive range of spectacles will be put on the market by some manufacturers.

Mr. Dobson: If the hon. Gentleman is confident that private prices will fall below the present NHS charges, will he support my proposition that the change should not be made until that has happened?

Mr. Morris: The hon. Gentleman is a good debater, but I did not say that private prices would fall below NHS charges. I said that there would be an inexpensive range of spectacles which might be broadly competitive in price. They will not necessarily be cheaper.
There is another aspect to be considered. If NHS glasses were such a success, one would expect that nearly 100 per cent. of our pensioners would use them, but the proportion does not approach that. Like other people, the elderly are fashion conscious. The evidence suggests that many elderly people—particularly if they are female—are just as fashion conscious about their glasses as anyone else—if not more so.

Mr. Meadowcroft: Why should they not be?

Mr. Morris: The hon. Gentleman confirms what I am suggesting. Those elderly people tend not to buy the cheapest glasses available. They buy frames that suit their image and their requirements, and on the whole they find those glasses in the private sector.
The hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Meadowcroft) said that he accepted that, given freedom to advertise, the price of the glasses that comprise the bulk of the market would fall by about 30 per cent.

Mr. Meadowcroft: The figure was not mine.

Mr. Morris: The hon. Gentleman quoted that figure, and I suspect that I know where it came from. Yesterday I attended a seminar for Council of Europe members—it

was nothing to do with this subject—at which I learned that, according to a federal trade commission report, deregulation of the advertising of spectacles in the United States was followed by a fall in price of 30 to 40 per cent. and there was no evidence of a fall in standards.
My hon. and learned Friend is right to suggest that if we remove the subsidy—whether the average subsidy is £5 or £2—and make state provision for children, for those on supplementary benefit and for the difficult area of specialised and technical glasses—which my hon. Friend the Member for Edgbaston has told us that the Government are considering—the rest of society will get cheaper glasses.

Mr. Charles Kennedy: The speech of the hon. Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Morris) was an example of dogma flying in the face of common sense, not to speak of compassion. He argued that there are certain aspects of the competitive theory that are attractive and that could perhaps, under certain circumstances, mean cheaper glasses for certain sections of the public, but he recognised that there will be large disadvantaged groups. He expressed a hope that the Minister will be able to do something for them. That is not a constructive attitude to the legislation, or a compassionate one.
For the benefit of the hon. Gentleman, I shall amplify some of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Meadowcroft). I have here the DHSS statistics for spectacles provided in 1982 under the NHS general ophthalmic service. Approximately 5 million patients were supplied with complete spectacles or with lenses for existing or new frames. Of those people, some 450,000 or 9 per cent. were children, and about 1·3 million or 27 per cent. were exempt on grounds of low income. However, as the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight) has made clear, the remainder of those who are currently given support for the purchase of ophthalmic services—3·2 million people or 64 per cent.—will lose that support. When the hon. Gentleman voices his concern about that group, he should remember that it amounts to nearly two thirds of all who are given support at the moment. I am sure that as two thirds of those who now receive State support are to be deprived of it, the hon. Gentleman will join me in expecting from the hon. and learned Gentleman some substantial arguments in favour of what he wants to do, and some information about what he will do to cushion the effects of the measure.

Mr. Morris: The hon. Gentleman wears glasses, as I do. We are included in that figure of two thirds. I have NHS lenses in a private sector frame and I therefore receive a subsidy. The figure of two thirds includes the vast majority of the market.

Mr. Kennedy: The hon. Gentleman moves swiftly from premise to conclusion without much justification in between.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West answered the point made by the hon. Member for Edgbaston. The fact that certain sections of the population can afford to turn to the private sector in whole or in part when purchasing these services does not legitimise what the Minister seeks to do. The ethic of the NHS is freedom to use at the point of need. It is freedom of access, without any particular reference to ability to pay. That should apply as much to spectacles as to coronary treatment.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. John MacKay): indicated dissent.

Mr. Kennedy: Clearly the Minister does not agree. It is sad that the Minister responsible for health in Scotland does not uphold the ideal of the NHS, in that he does not believe that treatment should be free at the point of use, irrespective of ability to pay.

Mr. MacKay: The hon. Member is making enormous jumps of the imagination. Coronary treatment is given to all patients, who all require the same treatment. In the case of spectacles, there is not one simple basic frame. Fashion plays a part—sometimes quite an expensive part. The spectacle frame does more than fulfil a strictly medical need, and that "more" is what people should pay for.

Mr. Kennedy: I accept the Minister's point, and shall have to clarify my own argument. It does not matter whether we are talking about spectacles or coronary treatment. If one accepts that the NHS is there at the point of use, and that the important thing is the patient's need, not his ability to pay, one cannot in all conscience accept the fact that two-thirds of those who currently receive State support for their ophthalmic treatment will lose it. I accept that among those who are to be deprived of support there will be some who are fashion conscious about the frames that they are using, as opposed to the lenses. At the same time, a large number of the groups specified in our amendment—the blind, those on the partially sighted register and old-age pensioners — will undoubtedly suffer.
Having spoken for rather longer than I intended, I conclude by urging the House to support our new clause 4.

6 pm

Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I very much hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Morris) is right in supposing that Boots or some similar supplier will come on the market and supply a wide range of cheaper spectacles for the general consumer, but I share the anxiety of my hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight) and for Halifax (Mr. Galley) about the position of people, perhaps on small occupational pensions, whose income is just above supplementary benefit level. I share even more the worries about those who are severely handicapped optically, such as those who need prism lenses. The Minister referred to fashion, but I am sure that nobody could be accused of choosing prism lenses as a matter of fashion. They are extremely expensive and have to be frequently changed. I have written to the Minister about a number of cases and have received sympathetic replies, with promises to consider the matter carefully. I hope that he will give details of that consideration today as many of us attach great importance to it.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: The purpose of this part of the Bill is to extend to people who need glasses the benefits that we are convinced that choice and competition will bring.
The Office of Fair Trading report has been mentioned. That report analysed the present position which hon. Members and the professions have sought in varying measure to defend. At present, a monopoly on the supply of any optical appliance is reserved by law to a particular profession in a way in which services such as the treatment of illness are not reserved by law to the medical

profession. That monopoly has involved a complete ban on advertising, with only modest relaxations allowing the use of small labels on spectacles in windows.
The result is that competition has not been allowed to flourish and consumers have not been able to exercise a wide choice. For example, it is illegal for anyone other than a qualified optician to sell to anyone else frames without lenses in them. Even empty frames can be handed over only by a qualified optician. The person wishing to purchase such frames does not have the advantage of being able to compare prices or to discover the location of premises through advertising in the media. The consequences of that are experienced by the general public as well as noted by the Office of Fair Trading. Prices are often excessive and the price of the same glasses may vary widely according to the choice of the optician. It is high time that the usual benefits of choice and competition applied to this sector as to others. We believe that consumers will benefit, especially pensioners, as so many of them need spectacles.

Mrs. Jill Knight: Is my right hon. and learned Friend not aware that the selling of frames is limited to professionally trained opticians because a frame is no use if the required prescription cannot be put into it and no one knows like a professional man whether a frame bought elsewhere is suitable? That is why the monopoly, as my right hon. and learned Friend describes it, came into being. We should appreciate that it was established for very good reasons. Incidentally, I am sure that he is aware that doctors are certainly not allowed to advertise.

Mr. Clarke: It is possible that if a person chooses a particularly large or exotic frame and requires a particularly complicated lens there will be a problem, but it will affect only a tiny minority and it is not the reason for the rule. As I understand it, the rule applies because of a narrow legal ruling on the meaning of a phrase in the present legislation which, accidentally but in our view contrary to the public good, produced a situation in which even empty frames must be purchased from a dispensing optician.
As for advertising, we do not propose the usual forum of non-professional advertising for this profession, so there is no suggestion that an optician will be allowed to claim, for example, that he tests eyes better than the man down the road. We propose, however, that opticians should be allowed to advertise their whereabouts, their hours of opening, the range and price of frames available and all the other basic information that allows a market to flourish and consumers to exercise some choice as to where they go for what they require. This will ensure that prices are kept down and will avoid the disparities and unfairness described by the Office of Fair Trading in the present imperfect market. If the result is a downward pressure on prices and pressure to achieve a high level of consumer satisfaction in dealing with patients' needs, everyone will benefit, not least the many pensioners who need spectacles from time to time.
Some hon. Members have suggested that the proposal is an attack on the free National Health Service. The hon. Members for Leeds, West (Mr. Meadowcroft) and for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) both made that claim. It is essential that the NHS provides properly for the health needs of the population. Hon. Members overlook the fact that the NHS will continue to provide a free sight test for everyone regardless of age or means.

Mr. Dobson: For the time being.

Mr. Clarke: For the time being — that is the proposal as it stands. The free sight test will be given to everyone. Indeed, so as to ensure in a somewhat paternalistic way that everyone receives that benefit who needs it, it will continue to be illegal to provide spectacles to a patient except against a prescription based on a recent sight test.

Mrs. Jill Knight: Quite right, too.

Mr. Clarke: Yes, we all agree on that—with the exception, I suspect, of Lord Rugby when the Bill reaches another place. Regardless of age or means, everyone will receive free health care at the point of delivery. The comments of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Craigen) about many more people descending into darkness and claims about failure to detect glaucoma and the like are based on a total misunderstanding of our proposals. The health care will be preserved free at the point of delivery for everyone who requires it. There will also be other safeguards where we believe that there may be a health risk.
We are talking about the lens and frame business—the supply and purchase of the appliances that people put in front of their faces when a sight test shows that their eyesight needs correcting and they decide that something must be done about it. We are concerned about the price of spectacles. I am confident that the present prices of private spectacles will be markedly reduced. The amendment relates to the effect on the prices and availability of current NHS lenses and frames.
In making a change of this kind, we are all anxious to ensure that we do not increase costs for those who cannot afford it. The result is that the Government have throughout made it clear that the general ophthalmic service will remain available on its present basis to all children and to those on low incomes who at the moment obtain their spectacles free or with some remission of the charges. That is the starting point. However, we are concerned about the remainder—adult patients who do not at present qualify for any remission, or for free spectacles under the GOS.
At present, any adult, regardless of age, income, or the condition of his eyes, can, if he chooses, buy frames and lenses from the particular range that the state provides. By and large, it is a matter of consumer choice whether a person wants to buy those spectacles and lenses. A small amount of subsidy is given under the present arrangements to those who happen to prefer them. My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Morris) is quite right. He is one of those who wears National Health Service frames with NHS lenses. My hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security quite often comes in wearing a pair of NHS frames with NHS lenses. I am not very good at recognising NHS frames, but I do not think that the hon. Member for Leeds, West is wearing them. We support my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, South and my hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security, but not the hon. Member for Leeds, West, because he has chosen a different type of spectacles.
At times, the state specifies certain types of spectacles. The John Lennon metal frames came into fashion. The little half-moon frames are rather popular now. Last year, I had the ridiculous task of having to choose a new ladies' frame. It was not a free choice—all the professional

interests wanted me to choose very unattractive frames so that I would not damage their private market—but nevertheless many ladies rather liked the ones that we came up with and they get support as well.
NHS funds are being used in a curious way. Most of those who have a particular taste in frames and lenses obtain a modest amount of subsidy from the rest of the population who either do not wear glasses or have a different taste in them. It is high time that we got out of that business. We believe that with the benefits that competition, choice and heightened consumer consciousness will bring, it is high time that that money was spent on more valuable things in the NHS.

Mr. Meadowcroft: The point that we are making is that everyone should have the right to a particular level of service from the NHS. If, for reasons of vanity or whatever, people wish to wear a different style of frame or lens, they can do that and pay for it. We are asking why the Minister will not allow the present access to the NHS to remain for pensioners and those on the partially sighted register.

Mr. Clarke: We are retaining the GOS. Indeed, we have always proposed to retain it with the subsidy involved for children and those on low incomes. They at present obtain help under the GOS. We are talking about the extent to which we should provide support for those outside those groups who have a particular taste in spectacles. As things stand, it is the subsidy that will be withdrawn. That is the difference between what the patient pays for his NHS glasses and what they cost the NHS. It is quite a small amount of money. We are not withdrawing the glasses.
Popular NHS glasses, frames and lenses will still be made for the benefit of those who require them. We are not taking them off the market, as the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras implied frequently in his speech. Those who like the John Lennon metal frames will be able to buy them. However, they will have to do so without the benefit of the small subsidy that they at present obtain under the GOS. On average, the subsidy amounts to £5. That is the difference between what the patient pays and the cost of the lens. But that is only the average. For four out of five NHS patients, the subsidy amounts to £2. Only 1 per cent. of all NHS patients obtain a £15 subsidy. Only 50,000 GOS patients obtain more than a £15 subsidy. Thus, we are talking about small amounts of money.
6.15 pm
Those subsidy figures must be borne in mind before one decides in which direction the market will move. The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras produced some extraordinary figures from Thames Television. I have heard some astonishing figures being bandied about and they tend to alarm the public. Of course, if an old-age pensioner is told that, as a result of the Government's measure, her glasses will cost £90, she will be rather against it. But at present her reading glasses cost £2 more to us than she paid for them. They will still be manufactured and available. Indeed, competition and advertising may lead to greater downward pressure on their price than is the case at present with the NHS as the monopoly purchaser.
My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, South is again right. We have rather driven people out of the lower end of the market by providing state frames for so many years. As a result, as British manufacturers have


tended to make NHS spectacles, most of the low-cost frames available are manufactured abroad. That is another unfortunate side effect of the policy. Those glasses will still be available. It is possible that nothing will happen to reduce the price of NHS glasses, so our old-age pensioner might have to pay £2 more once every two years. But maintaining that subsidy is not the best use of NHS funds.
I believe that the generality of prices will be kept down and that other people will be drawn into the low-cost provision of spectacles and lenses. I also believe that the choice will widen at the lower end of the market, which will enable us eventually to go over to the system of grants for low-income groups and children, which we think should be introduced to replace the present provision of NHS frames and lenses.
As the House will have gathered, I am quite unrepentant about the broad range of policy. We are preserving essential health care free at the point of delivery. We are stopping spending money on minute subsidies to my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, South and others. However, the money can be spent elsewhere. Nevertheless, we have a problem with that small section of the population who have particularly difficult prescriptions. My hon. Friends the Members for Halifax (Mr. Galley) and for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman), among others, have raised that point. Some people happen to need particularly complicated prescriptions. As I said, 50,000 GOS patients obtain a subsidy of more than £15 when they buy a pair of spectacles.
Throughout, we have accepted that there is a problem and we have been considering what can be done about those who need more expensive glasses. Hon. Members have cited what I said on a radio programme or in Committee, and recent press speculation. However, on Second Reading, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said:
On the other hand, it has been argued that there are those with the very poorest sight who need complicated and more expensive lenses, and I am certainly prepared to consider the evidence on that to see whether they can have continued access to NHS glasses." —[Official Report, 20 December 1983; Vol. 51, c. 297.]
There has been concern, and we are contemplating doing something following what my right hon. Friend said that will enable those who require more expensive dispensing to continue to have access to the GOS. For example, we could go through the NHS provision and specify certain of the more powerful or complex NHS lenses. We could then say that all those who need those lenses can, if they so wish, obtain GOS glasses at cost price to the GOS. We are identifying here the patients who need the more expensive lenses, and they will include some of the more prosperous patients.

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: My right hon. and learned Friend talks about the cost price. The cost price of an expensive prescription might be very high.

Mr. Clarke: It will not be anything like the figures that have been bandied about. The subsidy to any patient under the GOS does not, except in a handful of cases, exceed £30. All the other figures, such as those from Thames Television, seem to be totally invalid when comparing NHS glasses with some different provision in the private sector. The subsidy does not exceed £30 for patients under the GOS, except for a handful of exceptional cases. Nobody receives a subsidy of more than £40.

Mrs. Jill Knight: rose—

Mr. Clarke: They are the people with whom we are concerned, because by definition we are talking about the cost. We are talking about the more powerful and more complex lenses. It is in those cases that people fear that the price will go up. People fear that if we do not have the restraining influence of the GOS, the price will go beyond their capacity to pay. They are people who do not qualify for help, or low-income groups. We are considering the regulations, but it seems to us that it might be a wise precaution, for the time being, to preserve access to the GOS for those patients who wish to have it. Of course, many of those people will not choose to use GOS glasses; they may decide to get non-GOS glasses. But where people want GOS glasses it may well be right to allow them to have them.

Mr. Meadowcroft: The Minister sweeps aside the evidence of the television programme. In the case mentioned, the identical prescription was taken to a private firm to be made up. It was not a question of comparing like with unlike. If there are such tiny numbers of people requiring a high level of subsidy, why will the Minister not accept the need to subsidise them at a proper level?

Mr. Clarke: Because that would be entirely regardless of means, and the GOS has never operated on that basis in the past. Mr. Magoo was a fairly wealthy man, as I recall him from the cartoons. Everyone has been concerned about the financial effects of the provisions that we are making, and we must concentrate the financial help on those having the financial difficulty. It is true that the change from the present arrangements will be most marked for those who do not qualify on low income grounds and who happen to need the more powerful and complex lenses. As people fear—I am not sure on what grounds —that the market in those lenses will take off, I am proposing to continue to allow them access to the GOS.
I have the sad disadvantage that I did not see the television programme. From the description of it, I am not sure what point it sought to make. If the House will regard me as the optician and the hon. Member for Leeds, West as the pensioner, at present I provide a pair of NHS glasses, which I obtain from the frame manufacturer and the prescription house. I give them to him at a GOS charge and I charge the NHS, say, £5 more. After the changes, I shall still be able to provide the same frames and lenses from the same source. Presumably they will cost the present amount, which is £5 more than he pays, so his price will go up by £5. I do not see how he can argue that somehow it will now be necessary to get some more expensive provision from elsewhere.

Mrs. Jill Knight: rose—

Mr. Clarke: I suspect that, guided by somebody with an interest in the subject, Thames Television has indulged in an extraordinary analysis of the consequences of what we are doing. I have heard some extraordinary analyses of what is likely to happen to the market in the next year or so.

Mrs. Knight: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Clarke: I will give way to my hon. Friend in a moment. I do not believe that the effect will be very shattering. There is no evidence whatever that all the high-powered lenses will go up in price. They tend to be made by specialists. The assertion is constantly made that the price of all the more difficult and unusual lenses will go


up. I have not seen any evidence to support the assertion. In addition, I do not accept the proposition of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight) that no profit is made on NHS glasses, and that they are all supported by the charges for private lenses. We have difficult but perfectly fair negotiations with representatives of the profession, in the course of which we agree their costs and their profit margin. It may not be as much as the opticians would like — very few negotiations produce the perfect solution for those who are bargaining about their income—but there is a profit on the NHS service. I refute the argument that it is a loss-making public service that has to be subsidised by a sometimes grossly excessive price charged for some of the private glasses.

Mrs. Knight: I am very sorry, but I must tell my right hon. and learned Friend that he is not correct. Profit is not made on NHS glasses. I was careful to say that the glasses were provided at cost, but even ophthalmic opticians and dispensing opticians have to cover their overheads. I assure my right hon. and learned Friend that it is not only Thames Television that produces figures such as those before us.
Cataract is a condition which needs strong lenses to compensate for the removal of the eye's own lens by an operation. I have information about a 78-year-old woman who is now paying £22·35—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady is making a very long intervention. She must not make another speech.

Mrs. Knight: I accept your ruling, of course, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Briefly, that lady will have to pay £80 for something that she now gets for £22·35. We are impaled on the horns of a dilemma. If the cost is as little as my right hon. and learned Friend says, surely there is no point in making any change. On the other hand, if it makes a great deal of difference—as many of us think it will—the people who have to pay will suffer.

Mr. Clarke: If the lady in question is now paying £22, my guess is that we are paying about £40 to the people who provide her with her glasses. But let us assume that it is one of the tiny minority of cases in which there is a £30 subsidy. It is possible that the NHS is paying £52 for the £22 glasses. After the change, why on earth should the supplier charge the old lady £80 for something for which it is at present charging the Government £50? Only the strangest operation of the market could possibly cause the cost of those glasses to go up in that way. But in case, for some reasons which have escaped me, it is possible that that will happen, that lady, if she receives a subsidy of more than £15, can have continued access, under the GOS, to glasses at cost. In that way, we shall be able to safeguard her position.
Many cataract patients and many hospital service patients will already be qualified, on low income grounds, for either free or reduced charge spectacles, and will continue to be so qualified. My announcement about the possibility of allowing those receiving more than £15 subsidy to have continued access will also benefit many of the patients from the hospital service, including many of those who have had cataract operations.
I understand the fears that lie behind the questions that have been raised, but I think that they are based on a false expectation of what will happen after we make the changes. I believe that my proposal will enable us, when the regulations are made, to look after those who have the sharpest price increase. Most of the others, including most pensioners, will find that they have benefits.
It is possible already to find on the market some private spectacles which are cheaper than the equivalent NHS spectacles. As no one can advertise that fact—because of the way in which the profession is organised—it is rather hard to find them. Nevertheless, they are there, and more of them will emerge. As I think my hon. Friends have agreed throughout, anything that we do otherwise to ease the transition for those with more difficult eyesight should not be extended to old-age pensioners.
6.30 pm
I believe that the hon. Member for Leeds, West is correct in saying that the new clause would merely enable us to provide for old-age pensioners. As I read it, it requires us to make grants to old-age pensioners, regardless of need. That is the effect of the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras. I echo what my hon. Friends have said. There are old-age pensioners who on income grounds are not necessarily those most adversely affected. An old-age pensioner who requires reading glasses may well be not so financially disadvantaged as somebody much younger with a large family who needs more powerful glasses. I think that the proposals that extend the provision to all old-age pensioners are misguided.
As to the suggestion that a free service should be provided to all old-age pensioners, as far as I am aware that has not been the case since 1951. Successive Labour Governments as well as successive Conservative Governments have never seen the need for extending exemption or establishing a free service to everyone above a certain age.
I observe that my hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for health in Scotland has now resumed his place. We are discussing a curious subject. It is a combination of health and fashion, or something in between. It is health, in that it involves an essential appliance that certain people have to wear if necessary to correct their eyesight, coupled with fashion, in that it involves the style of the appliance when they choose what they require to wear to correct their vision.
We are protecting all the health elements of the service. We are providing sight tests free at source, with legal restrictions to limit sales of contact lenses, and sales to children. I believe that we have thoroughly safeguarded the health aspect of the problem by everything that we have done. The appliances will remain available. By the extension of competition and choice, many patients and pensioners will now discover much more easily where to obtain a wide choice of reasonably priced spectacles than is possible under the existing arrangements.
However, when one considers sheer fashion, the practice of Ministers choosing a particular type of spectacles and giving a small subsidy, if everybody agrees with the choice, is one that we should end. Even if one can conjure up some kind of case for it, it is easy to look elsewhere in the Health Service and identify where that money could be better expended for more patient good. We are allocating expenditure on the Health Service in all


kinds of vital areas as rapidly as the economy can stand. It must be right to consider such anomalies, and to withdraw them, because the time has come to enable a freer market to look after consumer interests, and to stop Health Service money being diverted into what has become an out-of-date anomaly.

Mr. Dobson: All the problems in the Bill spring from the Government's blind faith in market forces. The Government use the Office of Fair Trading report to justify their blind faith. The Office of Fair Trading report assumed that no prescription would be required, and that Joe Soap and Josephina Soap would walk into a shop and buy a pair of glasses. Once the obligation is introduced to get a prescription, that does not apply.
The report also assumed that the NHS supply would continue. The Government are proposing to abolish the NHS supply, which invalidates everything that the Office of Fair Trading said about bringing down the price of glasses. I should not have said perhaps that the Government have a blind faith in market forces, because, if they had, they would accept amendment No. 10. We are saying that, if market forces reduce prices below the present NHS prices over the next two years, they can go ahead and abolish the NHS supply. The fact is that they do not have any faith in market forces, and they know that market forces will not reduce the price of private glasses below the present price level of NHS glasses.
The Minister gave as an example the famous 924 ladies' frame which he introduced. That was obviously stupendously successful. It sold like the optical equivalent of hot cakes. In fact, it damaged the private market. If the private market were working properly, some entrepreneur would have introduced the 924 glasses himself, and undermined the NHS. However, that did not happen, because the NHS did it, and the Government are not interested in doing anything to benefit ordinary people.
The Minister fails to recognise that the cheapness of NHS glasses springs not only from the subsidy provided, but from the fact that manufacturers have a guaranteed market, and can therefore have long production runs. That saves them a great deal of money, and enables them to compete. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight) claims that there is no mark-up and the Minister claims that there is a small mark-up on NHS glasses. What undoubtedly exists is a big mark-up on private glasses. Those factors combined keep the price of the NHS supply to a level at which, for most glasses, the private sector is not able to compete.
The Minister then makes the ludicrous claim that NHS suppliers have somehow driven out manufacturers who might have competed for the lowest part of the market. He said that this may mean that supplies have to be imported from abroad. I am willing to challenge the Minister. I will resign from the Labour Front Bench, if I am still on it, if, in two years' time, after these provisions have been brought into operation, British suppliers are still supplying as much or more of the market for glasses. I will do that if he will agree to resign if the foreign manufacturers, at the end of the two years, are supplying as big a proportion of, or a greater proportion than, the British market. I do not know whether he will accept that bargain—we will have to make it behind the Chair.
I am disappointed that the hon. Member for Edgbaston will not support the new clause. We have apparently come to the parting of the ways—our views cannot go on meeting like this.
I am astonished by what the hon. Member for Halifax (Mr. Galley) said. His electors ought to know that he thinks, as asserted by one optician—and he must be the only person in the country who says this—that the price of glasses, as a result of these measures, will be reduced by 30 per cent. I am not the mathematician of the year, but he is clearly worse than me. If there were even a 30 per cent. reduction in the price of the private glasses that I quoted from the Thames Television examples, the position would still arise where the NHS ones were £11·35 and the private ones were £30, or the NHS ones were £22 and the private ones were £50. He still has not benefited the electors of Halifax very much, even by a 30 per cent. reduction, and we are dubious about whether that would happen.
Conservative Members clearly do not recognise that, at present, presumably as a result of the free play of market forces, and the exercise of private choice by every individual, 80 per cent. of people with glasses in the country choose to buy NHS lenses, and 40 per cent. of them choose to buy NHS frames. Conservative Members wish to deprive them of the right to exercise that choice. That is what they will do, if they do not support the new clauses and amendments that we are proposing.
I deal next with the pensioners. Two thirds of pensioners are not entitled to supplementary benefit. As a result, not only will they not get free glasses, but they will not have access to the NHS supply, which has the cheapest top-quality products on the market.
I wish to comment on what the Minister would regard as his concession. He says that the Government are still considering the possibility of doing something to help people who have complicated prescriptions for expensive glasses. I think that that is a give-away. He roamed back in the history of the Bill to recall that the Secretary of State, as long ago as the Bill's introduction, had said that he was willing to consider the evidence on this matter. This is the heart of the matter. The Minister accepts that this is the group of people whose interests will be most damaged by the proposals in the Bill. It is revealing that the Secretary of State, when he came to the Dispatch Box to introduce the Bill on Second Reading, said—as if it was something new—that he was willing to consider the evidence on this matter, which is the heart of health care for the eyes of the worst-sighted people in the country. It demonstrates the extent to which the Bill is a product of a lunatic baying after market forces, with no concern for the eye care of most people in the country. It typifies everything about the Bill and about the Secretary of State. I hope that Opposition Members will support the new clause. I doubt whether any Conservative Members will do so, but if they do not it will be to their shame.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 82, Noes 179.

Division No. 270]
[6.39 pm


AYES


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Bidwell, Sydney


Barnett, Guy
Blair, Anthony


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Boothroyd, Miss Betty


Beith, A. J.
Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Campbell-Savours, Dale


Bermingham, Gerald
Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)






Cartwright, John
McCartney, Hugh


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)
Maclennan, Robert


Cohen, Harry
Marek, Dr John


Corbett, Robin
Meacher, Michael


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Meadowcroft, Michael


Craigen, J. M.
Mikardo, Ian


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'I)
Milian, Rt Hon Bruce


Dobson, Frank
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Dormand, Jack
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Dubs, Alfred
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Nellist, David


Eastham, Ken
O'Neill, Martin


Ewing, Harry
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Pike, Peter


Fisher, Mark
Powell, Rt Hon J. E. (S Down)


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Radice, Giles


Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)
Richardson, Ms Jo


Foster, Derek
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Short, Mrs R.(W'hampt'n NE)


Freud, Clement
Silkin, Rt Hon J.


Garrett, W. E.
Skinner, Dennis


Godman, Dr Norman
Smyth, Rev W. M. (Belfast S)


Gould, Bryan
Soley, Clive


Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Steel, Rt Hon David


Harman, Ms Harriet
Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Stott, Roger


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Tinn, James


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Wallace, James


Howells, Geraint
Wigley, Dafydd


John, Brynmor
Wilson, Gordon


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Winnick, David 


Kennedy, Charles
wrigglesworth, Ian


Kirkwood, Archibald
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Leighton, Ronald



Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Tellers for the way


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Mr. Frank Haynes and


Loyden, Edward
Mr.donald Dewar


NOES


Adley, Robert
Conway, Derek


Alexander, Richard
Coombs, Simon


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Cope, John


Amess, David
Couchman, James


Ancram, Michael
Cranborne, Viscount


Arnold, Tom
Crouch, David


Ashby, David
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Aspinwall, Jack
Dorrell, Stephen


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Dover, Den


Batiste, Spencer
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Dunn, Robert


Bellingham, Henry
Evennett,David


Bendall, Vivian
Fallon, Michael


Bennett, Sir Frederic (T'bay)
Fookes, Miss Janet


Benyon, William
Forth, Eric


Berry, Sir Anthony
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Bevan, David Gilroy
Fox, Marcus


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Gale, Roger


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Galley, Roy


Body, Richard
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)
Goodlad, Alastair


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Gorst, John


Braine, Sir Bernard
Gower, Sir Raymond


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Grant, Sir Anthony


Bright, Graham
Greenway, Harry


Brinton, Tim
Griffiths, E. (B'y St Edm'ds)


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; CI'thpes)
Hannam, John


Browne, John
Hawkins, C. (High Peak)


Bryan, Sir Paul
Hayhoe, Barney


Buck, Sir Antony
Hickmet, Richard


Burt, Alistair
Hirst, Michael


Butterfill, John
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Holt, Richard


Chapman, Sydney
Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)


Chope, Christopher
Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)
Irving, Charles


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Jackson, Robert


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine


Cockeram, Eric
Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)


Colvin, Michael
Lang, Ian



Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)
Sackville, Hon Thomas


Lilley, Peter
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Lloyd, Ian (Havant)
St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.


Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Lord, Michael
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Luce, Richard
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Lyell, Nicholas
Sims, Roger


Macfarlane, Neil
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


MacGregor, John
Speed, Keith


MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)
Speller, Tony


Maclean, David John
Spencer, Derek


Major, John
Squire, Robin


Malins, Humfrey
Stanbrook, Ivor


Marland, Paul
Stern, Michael


Mather, Carol
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Maude, Hon Francis
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Stradling Thomas, J.


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Tapsell, Peter


Mayhew, Sir Patrick
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Mellor, David
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Thorne, Neil (llford S)


Mills, lain (Meriden)
Thurnham, Peter


Mitchell, David (NW Hants)
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Moate, Roger
Tracey, Richard


Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)
Trotter, Neville


Moynihan, Hon C.
Twinn, Dr Ian


Murphy, Christopher
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Needham, Richard
Viggers, Peter


Newton, Tony
Waddington, David


Nicholls, Patrick
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Norris, Steven
Waldegrave, Hon William


Onslow, Cranley
Walden, George


Osborn, Sir John
Waller, Gary


Ottaway, Richard
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Page, John (Harrow W)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Page, Richard (Herts SW)
Wheeler, John


Parris, Matthew
Whitfield, John


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Wiggin, Jerry


Pollock, Alexander
Wilkinson, John


Powell, William (Corby)
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Powley, John
Winterton, Nicholas


Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Wolfson, Mark


Price, Sir David
Wood, Timothy


Proctor, K. Harvey
Woodcock, Michael


Rhodes James, Robert
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon



Robinson, Mark (N'port W)
Tellers for the Noes:


Roe, Mrs Marion
Mr. Archie Hamilton and


Rowe, Andrew
Mr. Michael Neubert


Ryder, Richard

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 3

PROTECTION OF THE PUBLIC

'(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations made by Statutory Instrument make such provisions as he considers necessary for licensing persons other than registered opticians to carry out without the supervision of such opticians the dispensing, sale or supply of optical appliances, and for monitoring their efficiency in carrying out such dispensing, sale or supply.

(2) A Statutory Instrument under this section shall be of no effect unless approved by a resolution of both Houses of Parliament. '.—[Mrs. Jill Knight.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Paul Dean): With this it will be convenient to take new clause 19—Standards of care—
'The provisions of section 1 of this Act shall not come into operation until the Secretary of State has by regulations established a scheme to ensure that spectacles are dispensed only by persons capable of interpreting any prescription given by a registered medical practitioner or registered ophthalmic optician


following a testing of sight by him and of so fitting or checking the fitting of such lenses that the maximum optical benefit is obtained. '.

Mrs. Jill Knight: The title of the clause shows that its purpose is to give some protection to the public. I thought and hoped that my hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Health would recognise that it is within his power to give protection to the public, that it is right and proper to do so and that he should do so.
Many organisations outside the House are now massed in their concern about the lack of protection for the public in that in future those who are not qualified in any way will be able to dispense glasses. It has been suggested in earlier debates that the opticians are so concerned about making money that they are the only ones to object to the Bill. That is not true. The women's institute, which has nothing to gain by criticising the Bill, is extremely concerned about the lack of protection for the public following the Bill's enactment. The British Medical Association, whose support or rejection is not to be sneezed at, has similarly expressed its concern about lack of protection for the public. It is well known that family practitioner committees throughout the country have been deluging Members interested in the Bill with their concern about it.
Recently the International Optometric and Optical League met. On that occasion, 43 optical and optometric organisations from countries throughout the world met in London and, among other things, discussed the Bill. The House will be interested to hear the views of the league, bearing in mind that it is an international group of experts. I accept that it might be thought to be part of a rather sinister trade union connected with the ophthalmic profession. However, its members work to an extremely high standard. The president is professor of the school of studies in optometry of the University of Bradford and has nothing to gain from supporting or rejecting the Bill. The considered view of the league is as follows:
The League views with considerable concern the proposals of the United Kingdom Government to amend the Opticians Act 1958. This measure will put the public at considerable risk of receiving inaccurate, inadequate and inappropriate optical dispensing, at a time when world standards generally in its member countries are increasing. The League further registers its concern that, when standards of dispensing in the European Economic Community are considered, the United Kingdom will now become the only member state to deregulate optical dispensing in this way and remove consumer protection from a large part of health care.
Surely these are views that should be understood and considered. Surely they must weigh heavily. It seems that the United Kingdom will be the black sheep when all other countries in Europe are going forward and providing better health care and more protection for patients. However, we alone in Europe are taking a retrograde step.
It is almost 30 years now since the House, in its wisdom, passed legislation to protect the public from the dangers of allowing persons without expert knowledge to dispense spectacles. The Bill that offered that protection was not introduced by accident. It was not an afterthought and it was not taken lightly. It was introduced because it was recognised that protection for the public, when it came to caring for their sight, was a matter of great importance. At that time it was acknowledged that glasses needed to be properly fitted, centred, adjusted and checked, because otherwise the wearers would not be able to see properly.
It is a sad and sorry fact that we are now contemplating taking a retrograde step. Britain alone in Europe is contemplating throwing away the protection that is offered

to the public in the dispensing of spectacles. My right hon. and learned Friend says, "We are improving the choice of members of the public. Members of the public do not have to go to a bucket shop for the dispensing of their glasses and do not have to go to an unqualified person. They can go to someone who knows what he is doing if they wish, and if they do not wish to do so the decision is up to them." In other words, the standard of care for one's eyes is of such little importance that it is a matter of choice whether the individual should or should not take advantage of the expertise that we in Britain have enjoyed for so long.
If my right hon. and learned Friend takes that view, why did he support the Bill to enforce the wearing of seat belts? If he had felt that protection should be a personal choice, he would not have voted for that measure, but in fact he did. He made a wise choice in deciding to support that excellent measure, but the considerations that apply to the dispensing of spectacles and the wearing of a seat belt are to some degree on all fours.
Why do we have health and safety provisions in various Acts if people should be left to choose for themselves whether to observe safety standards? Why do we bother to say that people must by law protect themselves and others? Why do we have an obligatory test after three years to ensure that motor cars are roadworthy? If my right hon. and learned Friend is right, it should be open to the public to drive cars that are defective. If, for example, a car has defective brakes, too bad. If it is for them to decide to drive a car that has been properly tested or not to bother, why do we have legislation to force members of the public to have their cars tested?

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: My hon. Friend has cited examples of Acts that we both supported. They concerned activities that could result in injury or death if the public did not do the sensible thing. My hon. Friend knows that after a recent sight test, as we are requiring, the consensus of medical opinion is overwhelming that no damage can be done to adult eyes by errors made in dispensing.

Mrs. Knight: I ask my right hon. and learned Friend to be patient because I intend to come to that argument. If he seriously thinks that badly dispensed glasses, leading to a person's inability to see, hold no dangers for himself or others, he is quite wrong.

Mr. Hal Miller: I, too, have received a number of representations on the matter. However, if I wanted to obtain treatment for a certain matter, I could choose whether to go to a doctor, an orthopaedic consultant or a homeopathist. They can all prescribe something.

7 pm

Mrs. Knight: But that is a question of going to someone who has been trained. One does not go to the local market for treatment. Unless someone is properly trained, he cannot provide a service. My hon. Friend may claim that not a great deal of training is involved in homeopathy, but others would claim that that profession involves a great deal of training and knowledge. The right of a person to choose not to take care of himself is acceptable only until his choice affects others. There is no doubt about the danger to a person and the public around him if he cannot see properly.
My right hon. and learned Friend claims that sufficient protection is afforded by a patient having had his eyes


tested by an expert, but that any fool can then stick in the prescribed lenses and put the spectacles on any old nose. I know that it does not appear to involve a great deal of training — but, then, it appears easy to skate. The standards of Torvill and Dean would not easily be achieved by someone with no training.
I have found the exercise of trying to tell my colleagues that dispensing is not easy to be a rather dismal exercise. Unless people have properly prescribed glasses, they cannot see. One of my colleagues was astonished to learn that it took two years of full-time training and a year's practical experience to qualify as a dispensing optician. People may say that that is a waste of time and that patients should consult people with no training. But those two years are not wasted simply on looking at a few colours. The complexity of the knowledge of prescribing glasses correctly is something that the House should understand if it intends to pass a Bill that will have such serious consequences.
A prescription is of no value until and unless it is correctly and accurately dispensed. A prescription gives only the power of the lenses — it provides no information about the position of the lenses in relation to the eyes, and that makes a great difference to whether a person can see. The prescription takes no account of the measurement of the bridge, the eye size and length, the angle of the sides of the frame and so on. A dispensing optician must know about the materials from which the lenses are made—are they to be crown glass, hard resin plastic, high-light glass or polycarbonate? A dispenser cannot know what difference the various sorts of materials make unless he is trained.
Many people prefer tinted lenses. Perhaps their eyes are not good at taking in a great deal of light, or perhaps they think it is rather smart. The dispenser needs to know about tints, the toughening of anti-reflecting coating and a whole range of other matters with which I shall not bore the House. I could speak for a long time accurately to describe the complexity of the courses necessary before people are allowed to dispense spectacles. There is a problem of bifocal and multifocal lenses. That requires a further set of measurements, including the height and decentration of reading segments—that may appear easy, but it is not.
I accept that we have lost the battle on the main point that there should be only qualified dispensing opticians, but, if we are interested in protecting the public, we must have some standards, and they will be provided by the amendment. I am sorry to say that the Government have proposed no effective system that will ensure any safeguards for the public. My right hon. and learned Friend responded to the degree of concern expressed in Committee by saying that the Government's policy had always been not to take steps that might risk the health of those needing spectacles. Yet that is precisely what they are doing.
Wrongly dispensed spectacles may not actually damage the eyes, but many other factors must be considered. Wrongly dispensed spectacles can undoubtedly lead to persistent bad headaches that will not improve, no matter how many aspirins are taken.
Wrongly dispensed spectacles can lead to a breakdown in the ability of the two eyes to co-ordinate. If a lack of co-ordination is reflected in the lenses, the eyes will be trained not to co-ordinate with each other. That is a serious

matter. Wrongly dispensed glasses can also cause double vision. One might think that the person would realise that and do something about it, but they may have done a great deal of damage to themselves before the problem is put right. It would take a long time for the eyes to settle down again. I wonder how many of my hon. Friends know that wrongly dispensed glasses can turn a temporary squint into a permanent squint.
Serious problems can occur from wrongly dispensed glasses, and we must protect the public from that. Most important of all, a person wearing wrongly dispensed glasses will not be able to see properly. He may not realise that. He may think that a traffic island, a bollard or a pavement is two or three feet forward or backward of its actual position. Traffic accidents may well occur.
I recently received a letter from an optician telling me that he had been concerned about the eyesight of one of his patients. He asked the patient to come to see him again in less than the usual two year period. When the man did so, the optician found that there was a serious deterioration in his eyesight, although the man had not realised that. The optician was able to correct it. Under the proposed new laws, that man may not even pay a return visit to his optician. Even if he does, his glasses may be wrongly dispensed. That man's trade is driving a high-speed intercity train at 120 miles per hour. Let no one tell me that it is not necessary to protect the public from people driving trains when they cannot see properly.
I wish that there had been more consultation between my right hon. and learned Friend and such organisations as the ophthalmic group of the British Medical Association—which could have told him the facts.
I asked in Committee how the service given by what I could only describe as tradesmen would be monitored when the Bill became law. My right hon. and learned Friend replied that the General Optical Council would do the monitoring. But neither the GOC nor the BMA, let alone the Minister, can monitor such matters unless there is a register or licensing procedure such as the new clause envisages.
It is no good saying that there will be monitoring to see that people are behaving properly and acting in the best interests of the care of the public's eyesight if we cannot trace the people concerned. The only way to know where they are is to have a procedure which, while accepting that they are not opticians, registers them.
We are unable to debate British standards in these matters because amendments which would have enabled such debate have not been selected. There will be nothing under British standards of which we are aware to givesesprotection. The GOC will not be able to monitor or even keep a check on the service being provided unless the new clause is accepted. If there is provision in the Bill to enable monitoring to occur, I shall be delighted to be told that by my right hon. and learned Friend, who said in Committee in January last:
We shall impose conditions on the supply of optical appliances which will strengthen the present position." —[Official Report, 26 January 1984; c. 44.]
Having hunted for them, I cannot find such conditions. As for the present position, it is fine. I do not object to competition, but I want it to take place among qualified people who know what they are doing. I beg my right hon. and learned Friend, and my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Miller), to accept that if people cannot see properly, they are a danger to themselves and society.


I ask for the support of the House for a thoroughly reasonable new clause which should appeal to all who care about preserving the standard of care for the eyes of the people

Mr. Dobson: I warn the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight) about drawing attention to such matters as a British Rail driver with bad eyesight. As the Government's logic is so odd that when faced with the high price of private glasses they abolish low-priced public glasses, their answer to that driver's eye problem may be to abolish British Rail.
New clauses 3 and 19 are identical in intention if not in wording. While many of us complain about the high price of some private glasses, we have never expressed doubt about the professional competence of the optical profession. It appears that the Government do not believe that there are any benefits to the public flowing from the application of professional standards. At their best, professional standards benefit not only the profession concerned but also the public.
Professions with non-commercial standards were developed because it was generally felt that there were standards to the advantage of the public which would not result from the interplay of market forces and that there were more important things than those market forces could produce.
Whatever criticisms may have been levelled at parts of the optical profession about the prices that were charged by some of them for some private glasses, doubts were never expressed about their professional competence. We should not do anything to undermine the standards of the profession, the standards of dispensing or the faith that ordinary people have in their opticians.
7.15 pm
The Secretary of State appeared to be aware of that when he announced his intention to introduce legislation to change the law, because he said in November last:
There will be checks and conditions on non-optician sellers. Clearly, they should be able to read the prescription, and we shall consult the profession on this matter. Remedies will be open to the public under the Sale of Goods Act, but we shall have further talks about any additional protection that is required. This will become part of a Bill that will be put before the House shortly, and therefore we shall have time to go into all these aspects."—[Official Report, 28 November 1983; Vol 49, c. 438–9.]
No provisions of that sort were in the original draft of the Bill and no such provisions by way of amendment were accepted in Committee from the hon. Member for Edgbaston or my hon. Friends. We are now trying by these new clauses to do simply that which the Secretary of State said he would do when he claimed that checks and conditions would be imposed on non-optician sellers. The Bill contains no such checks and conditions.
We are usually told that only people with a vested interest say that skill is needed in dispensing. It is true that most of those who say that skill is needed in dispensing have a vested interest—because they are dispensers—but, in addition to a vested interest, they have more than an ordinary interest in the subject; they made representations because they were aware that changes were afoot.
We end up with two problems for the non-qualified, non-trained, non-examined dispenser. It is possible that such dispensers will not be able to read the prescription and that, even if they can, they will not properly be able to fit the frame and lenses to the face of the person for

whom the glasses were dispensed. On Second Reading, the Minister, whom everyone acknowledges to be an intelligent and educated lawyer, did not know the meaning of the simple prescription which I got for my eyes. I do not blame the right hon. and learned Gentleman for not having the faintest idea what it meant. But he expects people who are infinitely less intelligent and well-informed than he to be able to dispense glasses. I have my doubts about lawyers, but it is clear that such rnatters baffle them.
We have been told, and I think that everybody just about accepts, that there is not likely to be damage lo eyesight from wrongly dispensed glasses, although there could be what might be described as aberrations of the eyesight, including squint, to which the hon. Member for Edgbaston referred.
The Royal College of Surgeons asked this question in a 1981 examination paper:
Give an account of the optical problems which may arise from badly fitted spectacles.
I wrote to the president of the royal college asking what would have been the model answer to that question. He has sent me the model answer but has asked me not to quote it in full lest someone in a future examination, by summarising our debate, answers that question and gets full marks. He writes that the effective power of a lens depends on the distance from the eye and that fitting of glasses determines that distance. He says that if they are wrongly fitted light can be defracted and that there can be a prism effect from the lenses. He says that there can be aberrations of colour and distortions of image.
I have not checked whether the next part means what I think it does, but he says that coma can result from this sort of aberration. If coma means what I think it does, it will have a dramatic effect on someone driving a car or a train; even if it does not have that meaning, distortions of image or aberrations of colour could have a dramatic effect on the safety of the person wearing the glasses and also on the safety of other people with whom he, his vehicle or plant operated by him came into contact. Therefore, all the evidence suggests that the wrong fitting of glasses can hurt a patient and can lessen the usefulness of the glasses he is wearing and make their use unsafe at work, while travelling or at leisure.
If I had to choose between the advice of the president of the Royal College of Surgeons and the advice of the Minister for Health, who is trying to save a few bob, I would put my money on the president of the Royal College of Surgeons. He may have a vested interest in matters to do with surgeons, but he has no vested interest in this because his members do not dispense glasses. We need proper protection from the public.

Mrs. Jill Knight: For the public.

Mr. Dobson: Sorry; we need proper protection for the public. I suspect that the Minister will require protection from the public if the measure goes through, and I shall not be there to provide that protection. We certainly need protection for the public. We need a form of protection that cannot be provided simply by the interplay of market forces and free competition. We all recognise that there are spheres where that is not the way to provide protection and most people would accept that this is one of them
If spectacles are to be dispensed and supplied by people who are not willing to subject themselves to the rigours of joining a profession, doing the training, taking


examinations and then adhering to the disciplinary code, it must be accepted that there will be ignorant and unscrupulous dispensers. If there are such people, we must take steps to prevent them from doing a great deal of damage.
In new clause 19, where we seek limited objectives, we accept the basic proposition of the Government that there should be a freer market in glasses. We say that we should require two simple conditions — that spectacles are dispensed only by persons capable of interpreting a prescription and that they should be fitted or that the fitting should be checked by someone who can ensure that maximum optical benefit is obtained. Those are limited and unobjectionable objectives. If Conservative Members do not accept them, they are saying that they believe that glasses may be dispensed by people who are incapable of interpreting a prescription and who are incapable of fitting glasses to the maximum benefit of the person who wants them.
Those are limited objectives, which are shared by the hon. Member for Edgbaston in her new clause, which has been presented in a different way. Whatever the ideological split between us on the rest of the Bill, I urge Conservative Members that on this new clause to do with eye care, the safety of people who get glasses and the safety of those with whom they come into contact, they should support the hon. Member for Edgbaston. These are minimal requirements which the House should support if it is being responsible.

Mr. Christopher Hawkins: I support new clause 3. My right hon. and learned Friend has made much play in recent months of the analogy with doctors. He has said that doctors face competition from herbalists, osteopaths and others and has asked why dispensing opticians should not face competition. The analogy is not fair. Herbalists and osteopaths are not allowed to carry out all the functions of a doctor. They cannot prescribe drugs under the National Health Service or send patients to NHS hospitals at state expense. The analogy is extremely poor.
Doctors do not dispense. A doctor's role is to diagnose and prescribe. If the doctor analogy is to hold at all it should be used for the prescribing optician, not the dispensing optician. If my right hon. and learned Friend believes in free competition between doctors and herbalists and osteopaths, then perhaps he should introduce a Bill to allow herbalists to prescribe drugs on the NHS and to send their patients to NHS hospitals at the nation's expense. Equally if we believe in free competition, why do we not allow anyone to prescribe glasses, not just dispense them?
The fair analogy for a dispensing optician is a dispensing chemist. Are we to allow Tesco's and others to dispense NHS drugs using unqualified staff? That would be a fair analogy. Is that to be our next move? If not, why is the logic so different?
I shall not repeat the speech I made on Second Reading when I spoke and voted against the provisions on opticians. I have no link with the optical industry other than that I am a wearer of glasses, but I should like to quote from the British Medical Association ophthalmic group committee which says:
While specific harm to the eyes is unlikely to arise from the use or non-use of spectacles, there is firm medical agreement that the correct and appropriate dispensing of spectacles has very

significant health implications. The Committee cannot accept that after the prescription has been issued optical appliances take on the status of mere consumer durables and feels strongly that when highly skilled and expensive medical or surgical treatment has been provided under the NHS the final rounding off of such treatment with spectacles or an optical appliance must also be provided by skilled and qualified personnel".
That is a view with which I wholly agree. It is a harmful and retrograde step to allow unqualified people to dispense glasses. We are dismantling here an important part of the National Health Service and we are leaving the consumers unprotected in regard to goods that they buy rarely and of whose technical attributes they know little. This is being done wrongly and in a way that is thinly disguised as a move to increase competition. I shall support the new clause.

Mr. Kennedy: On behalf of the SDP and the Liberal party, I should like to support the new clause. I hope that the Minister will take note of the contributions so far in this part of the debate. There has been practical and non-ideological support for the clause from all sides of the House. The point has already been made, but I reiterate it, that it not enough to wave away criticism as being purely the product of vested interests. I have received a lengthy letter, which I shall not quote extensively, from a group of consultant ophthalmologists in my constituency. The important point they made is that they have no financial interest in dispensing glasses and that they receive no fee for spectacle prescriptions issued from NHS clinics.
7.30 pm
The consultants say:
We are, nevertheless, gravely concerned about the implications of this legislation, particularly in relation to the wellbeing and satisfaction of our patients.
The consultants say that the public are being "misled". They say:
The patients we meet daily think that having got their prescription from an ophthalmic medical practitioner or ophthalmic optician, they will be able to proceed to the nearest outlet supplying frames for glasses (hopefully at cheaper prices) and then bring the frames back to the optician for fitting. The Government's proposal is that the patient takes the prescription to the outlet (department store or whatever) for supply of the frames and the lenses according to the prescription.
In our view this is a recipe for chaos. Glasses are not supplied like windows. Dispensing is a skilled profession requiring three years' formal training with examinations and a subsequent probationary period.
We heard earlier from the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) what those involved in that training think of the provision. The consultants enclosed a typical prescription for a pair of bifocals. As the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight) said, that would not be the most complicated prescription available.
They say of bifocals:
The number of variables is complex, lens power being expressed to two decimal places. We suggest that the unskilled shop assistant employed in a 'non-professional dispensing outlet' would have no idea of the handling of this.
That is clear, and anyone in the House the last time that we debated the subject would have shared my astonishment at the Minister's defence then. He said that when one goes into a shop and buys an item one can hold it up to the light to see whether it is suitable. When talking about two decimal places, one cannot expect a consumer to identify what is right and what is wrong. The


professionally tested and qualified person who is open to professional criticism and scrutiny, not the lay man, should be left to do that.

Mr. Christopher Hawkins: It is a myth that the consumer can tell whether glasses are suitable. I have had many new prescriptions and I know that, even if glasses are correctly made, they feel strange because they are different. The unskilled person cannot tell the difference between the strange glasses that are correct and the strange glasses that are incorrect. The good, qualified optician has a machine that enables him to check whether the lenses have been made to prescription. I see no provision in the Bill to ensure that lenses are made to prescription.

Mr. Kennedy: I agree 100 per cent. with the sentiment and substance of that intervention.
Another worrying aspect is that the Bill does not seem to contain a safeguard against negligence or damage to an individual. The individual may not be aware that damage is done to the eyesight by a wrong prescription or a prescription not being met, but such a person could do damage to someone else. There is no statutory redress if such damage occurs. The Minister should accept our criticism.
I hope that the arguments will not be dismissed on the ground that they come from vested interests. The arguments are more than that. I usually welcome the breaking of monopolies in the consumer's interest. In this case the consumer's interest is not straightforward. Even if we accept that the Bill's provisions are financially advantageous to the consumer, consumer interests go further than that.
However much this Government want to retreat from exercising more control over individuals, Government's rightful role is to take control when individuals can do harm to each other. Harm can be caused by insufficient safeguards, testing and scrutiny.
I hope that the Minister will take note of the criticisms, the objections and the spirit of the amendment. We are being constructive. I am sure that he can be magnanimous, and accept the new clause in that spirit.

Mr. James Couchman: Both the new clauses attempt to rewrite the present register. That is wholly against the spirit of the Bill. I believe that very few people without qualifications will enter the market to sell glasses.
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight) used the somewhat pejorative word "tradesmen", which I found offensive. I think that the people who come into the market will be technicians from prescription houses who have made up glasses for a long time to the prescriptions of ophthalmic opticians.
An interesting analogy can be made with conveyancing. I was talking the other day to the managing clerk of a solicitor's firm in Medway. He said that he carried out almost all the conveyancing which came to the office for the partners. I asked him whether his work was checked by the partners. He said "No. I know more about this than the partners, because I concentrate almost exclusively on conveyancing." It will be interesting to watch what happens next year when the Government propose changes in the solicitors' monopoly.

Mrs. Jill Knight: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman) on not having to

wear glasses. If he had to wear them he would appreciate the yawning gap between making up a prescription and fitting a pair of glasses to a person's face. If he had to wear glasses, he would appreciate the importance of having them fitted correctly. One cannot say that there is no difference between conveyancing and fitting glasses to a specific requirement.

Mr. Couchman: In my youth I wore glasses for about 12 years. I still have glasses, but I seldom wear them because they do not help my eyesight much.
We are talking about consumer protection. The analogy with the solicitors' monopoly and conveyancing is not out of place in that context. Wrong conveyancing can lead to as many disasters as the wrong prescription of glasses.
Selling glasses will not be a licence to print money. Those who enter the business will sell at the end of the market that is based on comparatively simple prescriptions. They will sell reading glasses, for example. Those people who need complex or complicated spectacles will continue to go to dispensing or ophthalmic opticians from whom they receive their prescriptions and whom we have already taken steps to protect.
I make no bones about the fact that I had some qualms about the Bill when it was presented, and yet more qualms when I discovered that I was a member of the Standing Committee on the Bill. However, I have, with great interest, taken the advice of an ophthalmic optician who has a more progressive view of the legislation. My hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mr. Galley) quoted the 30 per cent. saving which this gentleman anticipates his business will make when the Bill becomes law. I asked the optician what training he would give his staff and he sent me a training schedule. I shall read from it briefly because it demonstrates that his operation, which will use unqualified staff, will be a responsible business. He anticipates a multiple retailing operation with unqualified staff, but he will certainly train them. He proposes that they shall be trained accurately to
dispense spectacle prescriptions from both internal and external sources. In addition, staff should be capable of reading the prescriptions in the various forms in which they may be presented, and also to ascertain a prescription from a patient's existing glasses where appropriate. Whilst there is an obvious need to keep the technical knowledge of lenses and frames to a simple level, certain safeguards should be built into the training in order to protect the public. The approach is directed towards simple and practical procedures which develop naturally from one step to the next. It is intended that the background with the frame selection, subsequent operations, verification, dispensing of the finished prescription and any ensuing readjustments or repair are presented.
It is felt that unqualified staff can be taught the rudiments of dispensing the majority of prescriptions by covering the following aspects of technical training. Frame types and parts; frame measurements and markings; frame selection; optical centre placement; multifocal height and lens blank size determination; ordering and verification; alignment and adjustment; minor frame repairs; lens types and selection.
The optician continues:
It is envisaged that this schedule can be carried out with intensive in-house training initially covering a period of one week. This may appear to be relatively short when compared with the time-scale necessary for the present training of opticians —but it should be borne in mind that these people will not be opticians, nor are they intended to replace opticians, but merely to supplement them, particularly in areas that relate to the commercial aspects of optical retailing.
The employment of non-qualified people or rather people who are not so highly qualified will be an important factor in reducing the cost of glasses to the public. It is felt to be desirable that unqualified staff should be taught the limitation of their training


and therefore be able to call upon the support of qualified staff wherever the need arises, particularly in areas relating to difficult or complicated prescriptions which represent a comparatively small proportion of the total.
That gentleman's operation will consist of several small stores within stores. He will have unqualified staff who will have available to them himself as a qualified ophthalmic optician and supporting qualified dispensing opticians.

Mr. Christopher Hawkins: We have just heard what sounds like a sensible training programme, and my hon. Friend says that qualified dispensing opticians will also be available. If that is such a commendable set-up, would it not be nice if the Bill insisted that everyone else had such a set-up?

Mr. Couchman: I take my hon. Friend's point. Responsible people will take advantage of the benefits of the Bill to set up operations such as I have described. Very few irresponsible and unqualified sellers of spectacles will come into the market.

Mr. Meadowcroft: The hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman) seemed to argue that the Bill was fine because few people would use it. It is bizarre to suggest that we need a Bill simply to ensure that few people will wish to enter the market. If that is the case, it is absurd to suggest that we should not register the few who wish to enter the market. Those few people might be precisely those who need to be registered because they might be the cowboys who want to make a profit out of this operation but who do not have the required expertise.
The hon. Gentleman drew an analogy between this operation and the managing clerk who does conveyancing for a firm of solicitors. However, his point falls on the question of responsibility. The clerk might do all the conveyancing work, and the qualified solicitor might not oversee the work because he trusts and has a high regard for his clerk, but at the end of the day the registered solicitor, not the managing clerk, will be responsible for mistakes. The only way to ensure that the technician who does the work is responsible for it is to register him.
The hon. Member for High Peak (Mr. Hawkins) said that the Minister was keen to draw an analogy with practitioners of medicine outside the NHS. That does not compare like with like. Those who offer medical services outside the NHS are not trying to provide services comparable with those provided by the NHS practitioner. It is not a matter of saying, "I have diabetes, so will you examine me and offer me the same prescription at the end of the day?" People visit alternative medicine practitioners because they want a service different from what they are offered in the NHS. I do not object to their having that freedom. They will not visit a chiropractor because they need brain surgery, nor will they visit an acupuncturist to obtain a prescription for a drug to cure an illness. They are seeking different treatment. The Minister appears to be saying that, although a prescription may come from a registered ophthalmic optician, it can be made up by almost anyone.
We have already accepted, in a previous amendment, that the word "optician" must be protected. The registration must be set out in a form which guarantees that

people understand that there is some training or qualification behind it. However, that undermines the main thrust of the Bill. We are saying, "Here you have a guarantee of service and quality, but if you want to have something cheaper you can go to someone who is called an optical practitioner or anything else." But what is the patient getting at the cheaper price by not going to someone who calls himself an optician? Will the product be cheaper because of its component parts? Will a lower quality plastic be used? Opticians will clearly be forced, because of the increased competition, to use cheaper materials. The product will become cheaper because the person making it up becomes cheaper. The result will be shoddy products, because those who make up spectacles will not put in enough time to guarantee the quality of the product, and they will have no responsibility for it.

Mr. Christopher Hawkins: It is also possible that they will get a lower quality product. Brazilian lenses can be bought at about 30 per cent. of the price of British lenses, because they are not made to British standards, are not optically pure and do not have scratch-resistant qualities and other features. I understood that the Bill would require that lenses should be manufactured to British standard, but I have found no reference to that.

Mr. Meadowcroft: I am grateful for that extra evidence. The spectacles will be made differently and quicker and the untrained dispenser's labour will be cheaper. Complicated work will be done more quickly than is safe. There will be no protection against negligence because there will be no way to take action. As far as one can see, such people will not be registered. Having protected the definition of "optician" that omission would undermine the purpose of the Bill. The least one can do is have a register for the dispenser.

Mr. Roger Gale: I welcome the opportunity to support my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight) in the principle that lies behind new clause 3. I wish to declare that I have no commercial interest in the subject but I am anxious about it. The anxiety was borne in on me by representations made by a number of opticians in my constituency. As a result of listening to what they said, I took the trouble to investigate a subject about which, until then and until the Bill was introduced, I knew nothing.
I do not, as yet, wear spectacles, although that may change. I took the trouble to visit a prescription house to see spectacles being made. I took the trouble to find out what went into an optical prescription from an ophthalmic optician. I discovered what he does. Until the Bill was introduced I, like most hon. Members probably, had no idea.
I asked my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister in a written question whether he would state exactly what went into a prescription from an ophthalmic optician. He told me that the information varied according to the patients' requirements, but that the headings on the form related to the spherical or cylindrical power of the lens, the access direction, the prismatic power and direction, and that details were recorded separately for right and left eyes, and for distance and near sight.
My right hon. and learned Friend also told me that there was also a form for the practitioner to record any other details, such as bifocals or tints, that might be necessary in an individual case.
That is all the information that is currently available on an optical prescription. That is important in this debate because the Minister and the Bill have laid great store by the fact that no spectacles will be available other than against a recent prescription. The information contained in the prescription is insufficient to provide a person with a pair of spectacles. The Minister is aware of that. I have no temerity in saying that in this instance, although I support the rest of the Bill, I believe him to be profoundly and utterly wrong.
With this clause, or something like it, we are seeking to maintain standards and the protection of the patient. Let me reiterate once again what a dispensing optician does to see whether I can get the message home tonight. He is the person who takes into account the nature of the frame that the patient wishes to buy. That frame may place the lens further from or closer to the eye, and the dispensing optician must make allowances for that. If he does not, the prescribing optician's information is of no value.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: My hon. Friend is expanding eloquently a point that has been touched upon before—that it requires training to use a prescription to fit spectacles. As my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman) said, there are thousands of jobs for which one requires training. No one employs people straight off the streets to do stacks of jobs. It is possible to train people to do a part of a job in a factory. If my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) watched someone operating a horizontal milling machine, working to an engineer's drawings, he would no doubt find the description of what was going on as bewildering as we find the description of a prescription, and he would no doubt accept that someone doing that work needed training. We do not have all the paraphernalia of registering and making it illegal for anyone else to do the job. Those have been the arguments of the monopolists over the ages—that legal monopoly is required to protect the consumer. To reiterate that it requires skill and training does not support the case.

Mr. Gale: I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend. He has succinctly made the case for the clause that is before him. I am not seeking, and I do not believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham is seeking, to introduce a requirement for lengthy training. I do not recall having mentioned the length of the training. What I have said, and am about to stress, is what my right hon. and learned Friend has just said—that the person doing the job needs to be trained. It is immaterial to me—as I have said, I have no vested interest in the profession—whether training takes one day, one week or one year. What matters is that the person is qualified to do the job.
My right hon. and learned Friend might like to see, here or in another place, some other provision introduced which states categorically that the person who does the job of dispensing, as well as prescribing, should be trained. That is all that most hon. Members in the Chamber tonight are seeking. The one assurance that we want is to know that the standard of supply to the patient will be maintained. I could say to my right hon. and learned Friend, "Please go and buy me a pair of blue trousers." He could not do that without knowing my waist size, my inside and outside leg measurements and various other things that are peculiar to me. Some would argue that they are very peculiar to me. To provide me with a pair of spectacles he

needs to know that my right ear is higher or lower than my left, and the side length. Unless he has that information, which will not appear on a prescription, as laid down in the Bill as it stands, he will not be able to provide the spectacles.
If the Bill is to work and serve the patient well, and I believe it can and will, amendments need to be made. First, the information contained in the prescription needs to be detailed more clearly to add the information that anyone would require to make up a pair of spectacles properly. Secondly, the person reading that prescription, be it a technician from a prescription house who, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham said, could and should do the job, must be properly trained.
I have no particular interest in whether this new clause is accepted as long as my right hon. and learned Friend takes on board the point that is being made by virtually every hon. Member, and these amendments are introduced in some form, place and time, before the Bill reaches the statute book.

Mr. Richard Alexander: I have a great deal of sympathy with the principle behind the new clause, and I shall be listening most carefully to what my right hon.. and learned Friend says against it. In their heady rush to undermine the professions generally, the Government should sometimes pause and consider what they might be doing. It is fashionable in some quarters to say that anyone can do the work of a solicitor, a brain surgeon or a dispensing optician because it might be cheaper for the public, but there is far more in it than that.
The new clause appears to provide an additional safeguard for the public against this headlong rush for equality and cheapness. When people entrust their bodies to others, they are entitled to demand and expect a level of competence. It is no good saying, "If it does not come out right you can sue." This is not the 19th century; it is the era of the caring, skilled professional practitioner. Those who are caring and skilled will be tempted to reduce their standards if they are left to compete in the market place in order to survive. Many opticians have told me and other hon. Members on both sides of the House that their very survival may be at stake if the Bill goes through unamended.
8 pm
It is important, for example, that all spectacles should at least conform to the British standards applied by ophthalmic or dispensing opticians. Hon. Members have already raised that matter in the debate. I look forward to hearing what my right hon. and learned Friend has to say about it.
It is important that the public should have more protection against spectacle sellers who sell substandard spectacles to those whose eyesight demands special lenses. The way in which these are dispensed is critical and the proper knowledge and training can be given at present only by registered opticians. The new clause would go some way to protecting the public in that regard.
The Federation of Optical Corporate Bodies is an august organisation of which I had not heard until recently. It has pointed out that few members of the public know what the Bill is about and what the clause may do. When the public find out that if they go to a glasses shop—may I call it that?—they will be given a standard of care and treatment that is no higher than they would


receive if they bought a dozen eggs in the market place, they will be entitled to object to the legislation that Parliament passed.
For those reasons, I look forward to hearing what my right hon. and learned Friend will have to say when he argues that the new clause should not be passed.

Mr. Tim Smith: I hope that you will forgive me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for saying that I am sorry that amendment No. 1 has not been selected. The amendment would have deleted clause 1(1) from the Bill. I believe that the matter should be resolved in that way. I believe that it was considered in Committee.
The concern that underlies my amendment and new clause 3 is that the Government's proposal will provide inadequate consumer protection. I support the Government's objective of providing more competition and choice for the consumer. They propose to achieve their objective in three ways: first, by introducing advertising; secondly, by the abolition of NHS spectacles; and, thirdly, by abolishing qualifications for dispensing opticians.
I believe that the Government could achieve their objective by introducing the first two measures and leaving the third out of account. It is a matter of judgment in the end but, given the deep concern expressed throughout the Committee, would not the Government be better advised to take only the first two steps, at least to start with, and to see what effect they have on the spectacle market? If necessary, the Government have that option open to them.
I was rather amused when my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman) used the example of conveyancing to support his argument, as I believe that that supports the argument for new clause 3. In the case of conveyancing, the Government are not proposing that anybody should be able to act as a conveyancer, nor did the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) do that when he attacked the solicitors' closed shop. The Bill to be introduced next Session will propose that there should be people called licensed conveyancers, in the same way that the new clause proposes to allow licensed dispensers.
In another area of consumer protection, it is notable that the Government are moving in the opposite direction. The insolvency White Paper that was published a few weeks ago proposes to end the position whereby anybody can act as a receiver or liquidator of an insolvent company. Instead, only accountants, solicitors and those qualified by experience will be allowed to act as insolvency practitioners.
The president of the Association of Dispensing Opticians, Mr. John Baker, who is a constituent of mine, has explained to me and to my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale)—I was as ignorant of these matters as my hon. Friend until a few weeks ago — that the dispensing of optical appliances is not a matter of carrying out a simple set of instructions. Professional judgment is involved. If that is not exercised competently, damage can result.
For those reasons, I feel that the Government have got this wrong and should think again.

Mr. Alistair Burt: Some months ago, I spoke in the Second Reading debate and expressed the concern of constituents who had come to see me. At that time, I was able to support the Government, based on their

assurance that there would be further consideration of the matter. However, I shall not be able to support the Government tonight.
It is a sad day when the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) should have to lecture the Government on the importance and origins of professions and the need for professional conduct, as he did at the beginning of his first speech on this clause.
The main concerns that are still brought to me by constituents, including ophthalmologists, who are not involved materially in the matter, are that the Government seem content to allow a very high standard of eye care to drop. We all accept that there is no clinical danger to eyesight from the wearing of ill-fitting and incorrect spectacles, but that does not answer the charge that the Government are taking the risk of allowing more people to suffer discomfort from their glasses, which they do not suffer now. The Government continue to say that that is unlikely to happen, as market forces will regulate the good and bad shops.
I feel that such regulation is unlikely to occur. Solicitors who have tried to get redress for clients who are pursuing claims for small sums of money would not always accept the adequacy of consumer legislation. At present, if a patient has a problem with his glasses, he can take the matter before the family practitioner committee. The Bill suggests that he will now only be able to sue the shopkeeper if his glasses are poor and substandard. The question is, of course, how many people will sue for £30 or £40? If they approached their solicitor, he would say that it was not worth it.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I hope that my hon. Friend does not believe that the family practitioner committee would give back the money. It will consider a complaint that the practitioner is in breach of his contract. It will impose a penalty on the optician if he is in breach of his terms and conditions. There is no consumer redress through the route that my hon. Friend suggests. In future, redress will be identical to the existing provisions.

Mr. Burt: My right hon. and learned Friend has made a good point. He is suggesting that at present a sanction can be applied against an optician who fails in his duty. But nowhere in the Bill is it suggested that a proper sanction such as disqualification from practice will be available against a seller of glasses. The present sanction allowed by the family practitioner committee will be removed.

Mrs. Jill Knight: Has my right hon. and learned Friend considered the difficult position faced by an ophthalmic optician or ophthalmic medical practitioner who tests eyes and gives the correct prescription? If that prescription is not made out properly and the person who made it up is not on any lists, or licensed, he will not be brought to answer for his incompetence. The doctor or optician who tested the patient's eyes is likely to be called to task.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Nonsense.

Mrs. Knight: My right hon. and learned Friend says that my suggestion is nonsense, but who will be called to account?

Mr. Burt: I think that my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister will answer my hon. Friend's point later.
At the moment, when an individual is provided with glasses, he may be concerned about the price that he has to pay but, by and large, he is not concerned about the quality of glass or the fact that they might not fit properly, and he might not have a chance to do anything about it. That is the last thing on his mind. In future, he may have to consider that. The problem is that what the Government are seeking to do in reducing the cost of glasses has nothing to do with any change in the quality of care that people can expect. The two things are entirely separate. As my hon Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) said, the Government could have achieved their objects without troubling the public about the quality of eye care.
A phrase with which we are all familiar is, "Why spoil the ship for a hap'orth of tar?" For a small consideration, the Government could suggest regular spot checks on those who dispense glasses. Those who dispense glasses poorly could be struck off the list and not allowed to practise. In that way the Government could convince the public that they were concerned about the quality of eye care offered to the public.
I fear that the Bill as it stands does not provide that necessary cover to the public. The shame is that many of us on the Conservative Benches defend the Government's record on the Health Service continually. We are not taken in by Opposition Members' comments about how badly we are doing. We know that the Government provide a good Health Service and are working hard. Our task is made immeasurably more difficult when a measure such as this is introduced, where the adequacy of care and concern is not truly shown. For a small consideration, the Government could say that not only are they making people's glasses cheaper but they are ensuring that the current high standards of eye care will not be affected. Nothing but the introduction of the new clause moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight) will clear us on that point. Accordingly, I support her new clause.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: What has come out of the debate is the lack of support for the Government from all parts of the House. Not only tonight, but previously, the case has not been made for the change. This is a retrograde step. We are turning the clock back unnecessarily. The Government give only two justifications. One is that there may be a benefit in cost terms, but it appears that that benefit could be achieved equally by the liberalisation of advertising for opticians, which opticians welcome and are prepared to live with. By the Government's own philosophy, that would bring a better deal for the consumer, without the dangers of unqualified people dealing with spectacles.
The other point concerns what the consumers want. Has the Bill come forward because of pressure from consumers? Over the past few years, has the Minister received hundreds of letters from consumers saying that they want the change and that they are eager and anxious to secure it when there is such a travesty in existing arrangements? The survey undertaken by the Federation of Optical Corporate Bodies showed that 92 per cent. of the public want things to continue as they are. Therefore, the proposals are for the benefit of a mere 8 per cent. Far be it from me not to concede the interest of minorities—the Government should bend

over backwards for minorities—but if 92 per cent. of the population are happy with things as they are, why are the Government acting in this way?

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: The hon. Gentleman said that so far not many hon. Members in the Chamber have supported me. May I ask him if the question asked in the survey was whether people were satisfied with the present price of spectacles and the present state of competition? I should be surprised if only 8 per cent. thought that it was unsatisfactory. I am also surprised that the hon. Gentleman has never encountered anybody who has doubts about whether the present restrictive rules do not have an effect on high prices.

Mr. Wigley: The question was the fundamental and basic one, addressed by many hon. Members—whether people want their eyes to be tested and spectacles provided by qualified people. If people say yes, they are accepting the implications of cost, convenience and so on. If 8 per cent. of the public is the sum total of support that the Government have for the Bill, they should consider once again whether they are doing something that is in the general interest.

Mr. Christopher Hawkins: It may be of interest that, while hon. Members keep talking about whether the public want the price to come down and whether opticians' profits are high, the Office of Fair Trading report, on which the Government leaned heavily in their case for introducing the Bill, states that there is no evidence that opticians' profits are excessive.

Mr. Wigley: I accept that. However, I also accept that there are provisions for extending advertising that can have the same effect. If there is marginal room to move, such advertising is the correct mechanism to allow a price movement to take place. The case that there is demand for the change has not been made. If there is a possibility of slightly cheaper provision, it can be met by other methods. Therefore, I ask the Minister and the Government to think again about why they need to impose this change on the country when there is no case for it.

Mr. John Butterfill: As my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister will be aware from the lengthy correspondence and discussions that I have had with him on this subject, I heartily support the Government's objectives in the Bill. It is entirely desirable that we should increase competition and restrict monopolies wherever possible. However, I do not agree that glasses should be dispensed to the general public with no protection, which is what is proposed in the Bill.
I would go a little further with the Government, as my right hon. and learned Friend knows. The dispensing of many simple reading glasses does not need the same care as more complicated prescriptions. I have suggested to my right hon. and learned Friend that simple reading glasses could be open to full competition—for example, glasses of a power of less than 1 or 2 dioptres. However, with more complicated prescriptions, where the fitting is more critical, it is essential to have the centring of the lens at the correct position on the eye; and where the distance from the eye is critical, it should be left in the hands of properly qualified people. That remains my view.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: In this lively, short debate the one thing that has united us all is concern for the consumer


and the interests of the patient. That is the only motive that lies behind the Government's introduction of this part of their proposals. In the previous debate, we talked about the general optical service, and the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) suggested with vigour that the measure was intended to save money and undermine the National Health Service. That is not the case. The only motive for ending the present monopoly on dispensing is that the Government believe that it is in the interests of the general public, as consumers and patients of opticians.
We were supported in that by the Office of Fair Trading report, which is charged by the House with responsibilities for consumer protection—fair trading. It analysed the problem at great length. Some of its conclusions are set out in paragraphs 9·71, 9·72 and 9·73. It stated that benefits would come to the public by admitting unregistered sellers to the market, that any dangers of accident were exaggerated, and that certainly the dangers of undetected disease and so on would be adequately guarded against by making it necessary for the sale and dispensing to take place against a recent prescription. That is precisely the balance that the Government have chosen. We believe that the Bill is a valuable piece of consumer protection which will improve the service to the public by weakening, to a marginal extent, a professional monopoly.

Mr. Dobson: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Mr. Clarke: I will give way shortly. The Government's case does not involve any rejection of the importance of professional standards in a large number of occupations or of giving legal protection to those professional standards wherever there is a case for doing so. Nothing like that is inherent in any of the Government's undertakings.
It is important to remember, in dealing with all the professions — including my own supposedly learned profession—that the purpose of professional rules and the laws which back them up is to protect the public against charlatans and abuse and to ensure that essential things are done to a certain standard. However, there is always a danger that those professional rules and laws may become a protection for the profession. No profession does not welcome a little trade protection against outside pressures—as opposed to consumer protection.
When considering any professional rules, one must make a judgment. We agree with the Office of Fair Trading that the amendment made to the Opticians Act somewhat casually a few years ago, giving a complete legal monopoly to opticians for the dispensing of glasses, was an error. It was against the public interest and is now having adverse effects.
In the case of sight testing and prescribing, we are preserving the position. That can be done only by a qualified man—a doctor or an ophthalmic optician. But we must apply the test objectively to the next step, which is the dispensing and sale of the frames and lenses and the frames without lenses. In our view, the present rigorous protection afforded by the law does not exist for the protection of the consumer.
Down the ages, there has never been a monopolist who has not defended his position by giving a moving account of the damage that will be done to the general public if competitors are allowed in to his legally guarded patch of

the market. Nowadays even the Liberal party seems to accept this stuff from any lobby that comes through the door. Indeed, it sounds as though it will be defending the solicitors next year.

Mr. Dobson: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman confirm that the Office of Fair Trading, which advocated getting rid of the requirement for a prescription, is contemplating suggesting a process of registration for jerry builders and second-hand car salesmen?

Mr. Clarke: First, the hon. Gentleman's comment is inaccurate. He should re-read paragraphs 9·71, 9·72 and 9·73 of the report. He will find that it is advocated that spectacles should be sold only against a prescription issued in, say, the previous two or three years. The OFT came to the same conclusion as the Government. It felt that, unless a recent prescription was required, there would be a danger that glaucoma or disease would go undetected because people were not having eye tests from qualified people. We have accepted the existence of that risk, and the Bill gives protection against it.

Mr. Gale: If we accept the OFT statement and the Minister's argument, will the Minister at least concede that, at present, a prescription does not contain the information necessary for the supply of a pair of spectacles? Will he therefore undertake that the prescription required under the Bill will have to include all the relevant details?

Mr. Clarke: I accept that, for dispensing, a prescription is not enough in itself. The dispenser needs to understand the prescription, and to know how to fit the lens in the right position and centre it on the eye at the right distance and the right angle.

Mr. Meadowcroft: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Mr. Clarke: Several hon. Members have made it clear this evening that they have been impressed by the argument of those who have lobbied them that the Government are disparaging the skills of opticians. That is no part of the Government's case. Several hon. Members have accused us of disregard or disrespect for the skills of dispensing opticians. They are wrong.
I could not dispense a pair of glasses. Someone who walks in off the street cannot dispense a pair of glasses. It is also true that I cannot repair the carburettor of my car or many of the electrical appliances that I have at home, and that I cannot do much about my plumbing. Many people make a living from exercising skills and semi-skills for the general public, who do not possess those skills. Dispensing requires a quite high level of skill, and anyone who uses unregistered people will have to begin by training them. When carried away, most of the lobbyists and some of my hon. Friends talk as though people will be selling glasses on garage forecourts and men who yesterday were selling ice cream will be gazing at prescriptions and giving out glasses today. That is nonsense, because no one could make a living in that way for more than a couple of days.
The last deregulating Bill that I took through the House was concerned with bus licensing. I was told that dangerous vehicles would be racing from bus stop to bus stop, driving the National Bus Company, with its overriding concern for the public interest, out of business.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman) has suffered from the same misfortune as myself. He reflects the general public interest in and approval of the Bill, and he faces those of my hon. Friends who have been persuaded by the opticians' case. Those who wish to make a living in the optical business will be the ones who will invest and who will give the wider choice and bring prices down. I hope that they will include some reputable chain stores. They will begin by training people. They will not put someone to work who was operating a lift the day before.

Mr. Christopher Hawkins: Register them

Mr. Clarke: We have not got that far. We shall not be facing cowboys and ignorant dispensers, as the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras feared, but some of the staff may be unregistered.
Some of my hon. Friends are great advocates of the free market in other areas, as the Liberal party used to be. But if my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham goes into business, the Liberal party and even some of those on the free market wing of my own party insist that all his staff must be registered. They must all be licensed by the Minister. The amendments are remarkably vague about the checks to be required, but the general idea seems to be that someone at the Elephant and Castle must draw up a licence and that we must go around doing spot checks. That is totally unnecessary. Must we register fitters?
Driving instructors, who were given an incredible degree of protection by the House in a similar fit of enthusiasm in the past, have told me that it is quite wrong for people to be taught to drive by friends or relatives, that there should be a minimum number of lessons, and so on. No doubt a good federation of window cleaners would demand a licensing system, a six-month training course on the various qualities of window, and so on. What will determine things in the end is protection for the consumer in terms of service and satisfaction. Reputable people will train their staff and provide consumer satisfaction. Anyone who fails to do so will suffer the penalty of going out of business.

Mr. Hawkins: My right hon. and learned Friend should do us the credit of advancing a better argument than that. It is cheap debating, albeit well done. On that argument, we may as well allow anyone to be a doctor, a nurse, a surgeon or a barrister. We might as well abolish all professional training and all consumer protection. Will my right hon. and learned Friend answer one specific question? In what infinitesimal way would he be deprived of the objectives that he has set for himself if he said that there must be British standard lenses? He could still have competition.

Mr. Clarke: We tend to restrict surgeons and pharmacists because would-be practitioners in those professions are in a position to kill people, but we do not extend the restrictions to treatment in general. The only treatment restricted by law is that which requires surgery under an anaesthetic. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Miller) has said, if one wishes to obtain treatment for one's back one can go to a chiropractor, an osteopath, a herbalist or a faith healer. No doubt most hon. Members who have spoken in this debate would say that

that should be made illegal, and they would find support among members of the BMA for restricting such treatment to qualified doctors.

Mr. Hawkins: Can those practitioners dispense or prescribe?

Mr. Clarke: No, but they can give treatment. They can manipulate people's spines. Personally, I should oppose any suggestion that back treatment should be restricted to registered medical practitioners. Despite all the arguments about damage being done to people's spines by practitioners without medical training, in a free society I believe in the benefit that comes from allowing intelligent adults to choose for themselves the qualifications and skill that they demand.

Mr. Meadowcroft: The Minister is being unnaturally grumpy today, faced with attacks from all parts of the House. For better or worse, the monopoly has been destroyed, so it is a smokescreen to suggest that registration is an attempt to preserve the monopoly. It is an attempt to write into the Bill the safeguard contained in the standard letter sent out by the Minister, which states:
The aim of our policy is to give spectacle wearers the benefit of wider choice and lower prices that fair competition can bring. At the same time, we have included safeguards to protect professional standards".

Mr. Hawkins: Where are they?

Mr. Clarke: First, a standard sight test is required from an ophthalmic optician or a doctor.

Mr. Meadowcroft: What about dispensing?

Mr. Clarke: Dispensing comes under the conditions. In referring to those conditions, my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Mr. Hawkins) has misunderstood the Bill. For the first time, there are to be British standards and legal protection for the products.
Hon. Members have waxed eloquent about present protections, but I do not know how many of them have had letters from people who have tried to complain to a family practitioner committee about the quality of an optician's dispensing service. The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras does not usually leap to the defence of family practitioner committees in their handling of complaints, although they no doubt usually deal with them in a fair, reasonable and objective way. The family practitioner committees will not, however, give the patient his money back, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Burt) suggested. They will simply impose a penalty on the practitioner if, and only if, there is a breach of the terms of service. If the complainant is not satisfied, there is an appeal to the Secretary of State. I believe that four such appeals were dealt with by the Department last year. Alternatively, the complainant can go to the General Optical Council with an allegation of unprofessional conduct. Nevertheless, very few people go to the council with complaints that their glasses do not fit or that parts have fallen off the side. It is a very cumbersome process.
Stronger consumer protection is needed. We propose to apply British standards, as my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak wishes, for both the product and the dispensing. Such a standard is to be applied for the first time to the provision of glasses by the qualified or the unqualified.

Mr. Hawkins: That is not in the Bill.

Mr. Burt: My point was not that the family practitioner committee would get the patient's money back but that the


patient would not need to try to get it back, as the optician would have to put the problem right because otherwise he would be in trouble. That sanction is being removed and it is not being replaced.

Mr. Clarke: It will be replaced or supplemented with the more positive consumer protection aimed at what really matters—the quality of the goods and services provided. [Interruption.] I am glad to see that the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) is back in his place to assist in defending the monopoly.
All the arguments so far have been aimed at providing consumer protection by restricting the type of people who may provide the services—

Mr. Hawkins: No.

Mr. Clarke: Yes—it is argued that they should be qualified or registered.

Mr. Hawkins: Qualified.

Mr. Clarke: That creates a new restriction. What matters is the quality of the glasses and the dispensing.

Mr. Hawkins: Precisely.

Mr. Clarke: At present there are no rules about that. Perhaps hon. Members have constituents who have satisfactorily complained to the family practitioner committees, the Secretary of State or the General Optical Council. Here we are talking about British standards which can be revised from time to time, specifying the quality and materials of the glasses and the accuracy of dispensing. At present, there are no such rules, and qualified opticians sometimes supply products that are not up to that standard. Dispensing may also not be up to standard, although I do not wish to attack the general competence of the profession. The Office of Fair Trading relied on a Consumers Associaton survey which showed a high proportion of dispensing inaccuracies, but it was an old survey based on a small sample and I accept that standards on the whole are very high.
An order can be made under clause 1 specifying among other things the conditions subject to which the sale of optical appliances will be exempt from parts of the Opticians Act.

Mr. Gale: rose—

Mr. Clarke: Perhaps I may explain what I mean before my argument is rejected. The order will come out soon, so we shall have time to consult all the professional interests about the terms and conditions required to protect the consumer against anyone, qualified or unqualified, selling highly inflammable spectacles or failing to meet the British standard in dispensing. That protection does not exist in law at present. It will strengthen the position of the consumer, whereas the weakening of the monopoly will merely weaken the position of the supplier.

Mr. Kennedy: How does the Minister square his present priority for consumer protection with his statement last time we debated this, when he said:
If any adult buys a pair of glasses, puts them on, finds that he cannot see properly and does not realise that an error has been made and point out that error to the dispenser, I should be extremely surprised." —[Official Report, 20 December 1983; Vol. 51, c. 360.]
That puts the entire onus back on the layman and does not support the consumer as the Minister claims.

Mr. Clarke: I do not believe that large numbers of errors will be made by qualified or unqualified people. I do not believe that there will be any dramatic changes of that kind. Generally speaking, if an error is made in dispensing, whether by a registered or an unregistered parctitioner, a person who has had glasses before will notice when he puts them on if they slip off his nose or give him double vision. [Laughter.] Hon. Members may laugh. I hope that they do not misunderstand the purpose of all this measuring. I am convinced that at present, with qualified opticians, patients sometimes put on glasses and say that they do not seem quite right.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Clarke: I see no inconsistency between that and consumer concern. Those who have spoken have all produced arguments that they plainly obtained from the opticians.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Clarke: I have a high regard for the opticians. The opticians of Kent, in particular, have been vigorous in the extreme in lobbying the entire House. They are wrong to fear damage to their practices. Like the bus proprietors who campaigned two years ago, the better ones will become more prosperous. Most adults will choose to go to qualified people who advertise themselves as such. Most people can make such sensible decisions, just as they do when making many other purchases.
However, I do not believe that the arguments adduced this evening in any way counter the OFT report, or the common sense of saying that we should allow adults the same choice as they have over endless other purchases. By widening choice and increasing competition, they will get lower prices and decent glasses, and the public interest as a whole will be served.

Mr. Gale: When decrying those who have lobbied us, will my right hon. and learned Friend acknowledge the source of his information—which is sitting in the Box at the end of the Chamber—and also acknowledge that that is in itself just as professional a lobby, and that professional lobbying is quite proper? In this instance, it implies professional and qualified opinion—exactly the same sort that is sought from him as an advocate. However, I think that we were quite close to some sort of agreement a moment ago. Is my right hon. and learned Friend prepared to give an undertaking that he is prepared to introduce an order that requires those who sell spectacles to be properly trained and qualified with a certificate saying that that is so?

Mr. Clarke: I will give an undertaking to include in the conditions such things as are essential to safeguard the quality of the goods and the service given. There is nothing really between us in our desire to ensure that the consumer or patient is properly protected. However, the difference is that I think that that protection can be sought by laying down legal requirements for the first time about the goods and services, or about what the patient is getting. However, I disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) and cannot quite give the undertaking that he seeks, because I do not see why the legal requirement should be on people. Ultimately, what matters to the patient is not the diploma held by the individual who gave him the glasses, but whether they


work and are of a decent quality. In consultation with the profession, we hope to settle those consumer protection matters when we make our final orders.

Mr. Christopher Hawkins: rose—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): The Minister has sat down. Has he concluded his speech, or is he giving way to his hon. Friend?

Mr. Clarke: Happily, the Minister has concluded his speech.

Mrs. Jill Knight: I should like to reply briefly to what has been a very lively debate. I shall sum up what has been said and express my views as to whether the new clause should be pressed to a Division.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Minister laid great stress on the OFT report. I am perfectly sure that the consumer movement in Britain—whose Bill this is—has achieved a remarkable feat. In attempting to give a universal bargain to shoppers it has somehow succeeded in endangering a primary health care service that is used by millions of those on low incomes. The sad fact is that my right hon. and learned Friend swallowed the OFT report whole without holding proper consultations with those involved in providing spectacles. That is the point. Before the Bill came to the House there was no proper consultation with those most closely connected with providing glasses.
A moment ago my right hon. and learned Friend said that the present system was having adverse effects. What adverse effects? No one can point to any adverse effects from the expertise expended on testing and producing the right glasses for people. We are supposed to believe that a monopoly is a wicked thing, yet the Minister must admit that he lays down the most stringent rules for chemists who dispense every day. Why does he not talk about them, as my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Mr. Hawkins) said? That is the most relevant analogy. My right hon. and learned Friend the Minister places those strictures on people but not on the drug in the bottle. The strictures are placed on those prescribing the drug.
My right hon. and learned Friend says that he has great respect for dispensing opticians—it is just that any fool can do the job. He spoke about how many hon. Members had suggested that bus drivers would be zooming round the country causing great danger to others. However, they must not only pass a test, but must be on a list. They must jolly well adhere to very stringent regulations. That is what we are asking for.
I was slightly hurt when my right hon. and learned Friend criticised the wording of new clause 3 because it does not say exactly how things are to be done. He knows very well that such new clauses or amendments never say that. But the theory is set out clearly, and he should not criticise it. He pretended that clause 1 contains the sort of protection that we want. However, I have pored over the clause just as many others have, and there is nothing there that gives the protection that this new clause seeks.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman) says that we need not worry because everybody will be trained anyway, and nobody will dispense glasses unless he is properly trained. I just hope that he has seen some of the handbills that are already

being pushed out. It is clear that a whole posse of cowboys is waiting to move in on the market. Those cowboys certainly will not be trained.
The main question concerns how the sufferer from bad dispensing will obtain redress. From where is he to obtain redress? That is not in the Bill. The Minister has not told us, and we are left only with the vague suggestion that something or other will be done about British Standards. Some of those in the profession have considered how the British Standards rules can be altered, but they have had to confess themselves beaten. My right hon. and learned Friend the Minister has not given us any examples. He says—as he is entitled to do—that he will get support in the Lobby tonight, but he will only obtain the support of those who have not heard the debate. I should imagine that 90 per cent. of those who have attended the debate will support new clause 3, which I commend to the House.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 65 Noes 149.

Division No. 271]
[8.48 pm


AYES


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)


Barnett, Guy
Howells, Geraint


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Kennedy, Charles


Bermingham, Gerald
Kirkwood, Archibald


Bidwell, Sydney
Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Burt, Alistair
Marek, Dr John


Butterfill, John
Meacher, Michael


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)
Nellist, David


Cohen, Harry
Pike, Peter


Corbett, Robin
Powell, Rt Hon J. E. (S Down)


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Radice, Giles


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'I)
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Dewar, Donald
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wighl)


Dobson, Frank
Short, Mrs R.(W'hampt'n NE)


Dormand, Jack
Smyth, Rev W. M. (Belfast S)


Dover, Den
Stott, Roger


Dubs, Alfred
Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Wallace, James


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Wareing, Robert


Fisher, Mark
Wigley, Dafydd


Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)
Wilkinson, John


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Wilson, Gordon


Freud, Clement
Winnick, David


Gale, Roger
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Garrett, W. E.
Winterton, Nicholas


Gould, Bryan
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)



Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith
Tellers for the Ayes:


Hawkins, C. (High Peak)
Ms. Harriet Harman and


Haynes, Frank
Mr. Michael Meadowcroft.


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)



NOES


Alexander, Richard
Body, Richard


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Boscawen, Hon Robert


Amess, David
Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)


Ancram, Michael
Boyson, Dr Rhodes


Arnold, Tom
Braine, Sir Bernard


Ashby, David
Bright, Graham


Aspinwall, Jack
Brinton, Tim 


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Brooke, Hon Peter


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)


Batiste, Spencer
Buck, Sir Antony


Bellingham, Henry
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Bendall, Vivian
Chapman, Sydney 


Bennett, Sir Frederic (T'bay)
Chope, Christopher


Benyon, William
Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)


Berry, Sir Anthony
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rusncliffe)






Cockeram, Eric
Onslow, Cranley


Colvin, Michael
Osborn, Sir John


Conway, Derek
Ottaway, Richard


Coombs, Simon
Page, John (Harrow W)


Cope, John
Page, Richard (Hefts SW)


Couchman, James
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Cranborne, Viscount
Pollock, Alexander


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Powell, William (Corby)


Dorrell, Stephen
Powley, John


Dunn, Robert
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Evennett, David
Price, Sir David


Fallon, Michael
Proctor, K. Harvey


Fookes, Miss Janet
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Forth, Eric
Robinson, Mark (N'port W)


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Roe, Mrs Marion


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Rowe, Andrew


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Ryder, Richard


Goodlad, Alastair
Sackville, Hon Thomas 


Gorst, John
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Gower, Sir Raymond
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Grant, Sir Anthony
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Greenway, Harry
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Gummer, John Selwyn
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Hayhoe, Barney
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Hickmet, Richard
Speed, Keith


Hirst, Michael
Speller, Tony


Holt, Richard
Spencer, Derek


Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)
Squire, Robin


Irving, Charles
Stanbrook, Ivor


Jackson, Robert
Stern, Michael


Lang, Ian
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Lawrence, Ivan
Stevens, Martin (Fulham)


Lester, Jim
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)
Stradling Thomas, J.


Lilley, Peter
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Lloyd, Ian (Havant)
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Lord, Michael
Thorne, Neil (llford S)


Luce, Richard
Thurnham, Peter


Lyell, Nicholas
Tracey, Richard


Macfarlane, Neil
Trotter, Neville


MacGregor, John
Twinn, Dr Ian


Maclean, David John
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Major, John
Viggers, Peter


Malins, Humfrey
Waddington, David


Marland, Paul
Wakeham, Rt Hon John 


Mates, Michael
Walden, George


Mather, Carol
Waller, Gary


Maude, Hon Francis
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Mellor, David
Wheeler, John


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Whitfield, John


Miller, Hal (B'grove)
Wolfson, Mark


Mills, lain (Meriden)
Wood, Timothy


Mitchell, David (NW Hants)
Woodcock, Michael


Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Moynihan, Hon C.



Murphy, Christopher
Tellers for the Noes:


Newton, Tony
Mr. Michael Neubert and


Nicholls, Patrick
Mr. Archie Hamilton


Norris, Steven

Question accordingly negatived.

New clause 9

SECRETARY OF STATE TO PROVIDE INFORMATION ON ASSUMPTIONS ON WHICH ALLOTMENT IS BASED

'The following subsection shall be inserted after subsection (7) of section 97 of the National Health Service Act 1977 (means of meeting expenditure of health authorities)—

"(8) At the time that the authority is notified of the amount allotted to it by the Secretary of State or as the case may be, the Regional Health Authority, the Secretary of State shall inform each district health authority and the appropriate community health council of the assumptions on which the allotment to that district health authority is based, such information to include:

(a) the total population of that district in the year for which the allotment is made, the preceding year and the projections for the succeeding years in decile groups;
(b) the number of residents over 65 and over 75 in the year for which the allotment is made, the preceding year and the projections for the succeeding year;
(c) the number of women of child bearing age in the year for which the allotment is made, the preceding year and the projections for the succeeding year;
(d) the number of live births, still births and terminations of pregnancy in the year for which the allotment is made, the preceding year and the projections for the succeeding year;
(e) the number of weeks estimated to be necessary to clear the urgent and non-urgent waiting lists in each specialisation in the year for which allotment is made, the preceding and succeeding year;
(f) the number of hospital beds available in the district in the year for which allotment is made, the preceding year and the projection for the succeeding year;
(g) an itemised statement of community care facilities and staff, whether provided by the authority or any other body in the year for which allotment is made, the preceding year and a projection for the succeeding year;
(h) the numbers on the hospital waiting list awaiting coronary bypass surgery, hip replacement and varicose vein operation and the estimated length of time to clear the list in the year for which allotment is made, the preceding year and the projection for the succeeding year;
(i) the provisions for renal dialysis for the age groups 15–44, 45–64 and 65–74 for the year for which allotment is made, the preceding year and a projection for the succeeding year;
(j)the backlog of maintenance, expressed in terms of both cost and time to clear for the year for which allotment is made, the preceding year and a projection for the succeeding year;
(k) an estimate of the revenue consequences of capital schemes approved in the year for which allotment is made, the preceding year and the succeeding year;
(l) details of requests for scientific and medical equipment met and not met in the year for which allotment is made and the preceding year;
(m) the average length of stay in hospital by specialties in the year for which allotment is made, the preceding year and a projection for the succeeding year together with details of the number of elderly living alone and people living in housing without basic amenities.".'. —[Mr. Dobson.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Dobson: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments:
Government amendment No. 13.
ii Amendment No. 14, in clause 3, page 5, line 41, at end insert
'provided that the Secretary of State or, as the case may be, the regional health authority, shall not reduce an allotment made for a given financial year after 31st December in that financial year'.
Government amendments Nos. 15, 78, 104 and 106.

Mr. Dobson: I deal now with a matter that is almost unrelated to the optical service. When the Secretary of State for Social Services allocates funds to regional health authorities, regional health authorities allocate funds to districts. When the inhabitants of those districts, staff working in the Health Service in those districts or even


Members of Parliament who are trying to represent members in those districts ask the Minister what is happening in their districts, he always replies, "It is nothing to do with me. All we do is allocate the funds, and the district health authority or the regional health authority decides what is provided in its area." In effect, the Minister is washing his hands of what is happening on the ground, just like Pontius Pilate. Indeed, in many senses it could be said that Pontius Pilate is the patron saint of the Department of Health and Social Security. Whatever goes wrong, it is always somebody else's decision. When anything goes right, a press statement is made, stating what a wonderful thing the Minister and the Department have achieved. When anything goes wrong, the finger is pointed at someone else. Thus new clause 9 could be described as the anti-Pontius Pilate clause.
I have drafted almost all the clause myself. It may well be that it includes significant drafting errors, and odd things which were better left out. In its modest way, the new clause says that, when the Secretary of State centrally allocates money to regions, which they subsequently allocate to districts, the Secretary of State, as the person ultimately responsible for what is happening, should state to the regional and district health authorities, and to the community health council in the areas affected, how he thinks things stand in health provision in each district at the time, and how he thinks they will stand at the end of the period for which he is allocating the money. As I said, I do not claim that new clause 9 is perfect. It may have many shortcomings, and I am happy to accept any changes that the Minister wants, as long as he is willing to concede the principle that the Department should accept responsibility for what it is doing.
New clause 9 itemises some of the information which, in a rational society, should be considered when deciding the health policy and the health funding for a particular area. I shall give some examples from the clause. The information should include the total population of a district in the year for which the allotment is made, and in the preceding year, and the projections for the succeeding years in decile groups, namely, in age bands of 10 years. The Minister ought also to indicate his assessment of the number of residents over 65 and 75, the number of women of child-bearing age, the number of weeks estimated to be necessary to clear the urgent and non-urgent waiting lists in each district at present, and as a result of the allocations of funds that he may be making, an itemised statement of community care facilities and staff, whether they are provided by the health authority or by any other body, the present provision for renal dialysis, and the provision as a result of the allocation that the Minister is making. It may be that the Minister will welcome the provisions, and propose adding to the list. If so, I am sure that Labour Members of the House of Lords will be happy to accept additions to the list, if the Minister is willing to accept the new clause.
We are attempting to build into the present system what is presently missing, an element of responsibility, so that the person ultimately responsible for funding and for health provision in each district takes some responsibility.
At present we have an extremely irresponsible system of funding and directing health provision. If anything goes wrong—if the number of hospital beds is reduced, if cuts are made and clinics are eliminated—the Secretary of State can say, "I know nowt about it, you had better get in touch with the authority." When one does so, the

authority may say, "We can do nothing. It is all the fault of the Secretary of State. He is not supplying us with enough money to do what we want."
In my view the authorities say that with more justice than the Secretary of State displays when he blames them. But whatever the merits of the claims and counter-claims, accusations and counter-accusations, the present system is a perfect formula for buck-passing. The people who suffer are those who rely on the district health service as well as those who work in the service and do their best to provide a decent standard of care. When they legitimately ask for more resources and want to change the provision, they are usually told by the health authority, "We cannot do so because we do not have the money." That is usually the case, but it is not always so. Therefore, the new clause is not only intended to make the Secretary of State carry out his responsibilities properly. It will also mean that anyone else who does not discharge his responsibilities properly can be more exposed to criticism than at present.
Among the amendments is one dealing with the timing of the allotment of funds by the Government. This poses another problem. I have not checked, but for all I know it may have arisen with previous Governments as well. Sometimes the funds are allocated so late in a financial year that they cannot be spent. In other circumstances:, a reduction in funding comes so late that it is extremely damaging to the district health authority, which cannot cope. We shall therefore support the amendment, which will ensure that the allotment of funds cannot be reduced after 31 December in any financial year, because in all conscience the health authorities cannot be expected to reduce their spending after that time.
It would be better if the Minister were to accept the general principle so that the allotments could not be changed at all. In the past, some district health authorities have been allotted funds so late that they did not have time to spend them, and when the DHSS and the regions began looking at the allocations for the succeeding year they said with brass-necked cheek, "We gave you the money and you never spent it." The timing was perfect, because it was known that the money would never be spent—it was ever thus with hierarchical bureaucracies. We should, therefore, limit the powers of the Secretary of State to make changes in spending, be they increases or decreases.
Even if the Minister does not like the new clause as it stands, I hope that he will accept the principle that when funds are allocated the Secretary of State should have to identify the assumptions on which he, his colleagues and subsequently the regions make that funding. That is only fair to everyone. This will identify the Secretary of State's responsibilities. He and his senior civil servants are paid a lot of money, and many pleasant things go with being important people, but when it comes to the crunch they do not accept the responsibility that goes with such privileges. The idea behind the new clause is that people should accept the responsibilities that go with the privileges of power.

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: I am pleased to be able to contribute briefly to the debate. My right hon. and hon. Friends were unable to serve in Committee and so we are trying at this stage to redress the balance by tabling amendments such as amendment No. 14.
I take up the argument of the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) by saying that it is the


experience of my colleagues and I that the Secretary of State has in the recent past adopted a financial system that has been cavalier in the way in which it has affected regional and district health authorities. The way in which changes have been made, and the timing of them, has made long-term or even short-term financial planning almost impossible for the authorities.
I know from my constituency experience—I accept that the financial situation is slightly different in Scotland—that health authorities are extremely worried about the changes that can be visited upon them at short notice, especially when they have a long-term commitment to wages and salaries and other costs and charges on their budgets. They contend that sensible financial planning is almost impossible. Therefore, we think it right that the Secretary of State should be subject to some limitations, and amendment No. 14 seeks to impose them.
The Secretary of State and the Minister for Health have an onerous responsibility to consider the amendment carefully. I know that there are difficulties in these days of financial constraints which produce difficulties for central Government, but unreasonable constraints have been put on those in the regions and districts who are doing the work. That criticism applies to both Conservative and Labour Governments and it is not, therefore, a party political point.
The amendment is a positive and constructive attempt to try to put a longstop on the Secretary of State's ability to impose financial changes on health authorities. We think that it is a sensible amendment and I hope that the Minister will consider it carefully. If he is not happy with the detail of it, I hope that he will feel able to make a statement on how the Government in future may be able to redress the balance by guaranteeing at least an element of financial security in planning that will be helpful to the regional and district health authorities.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) advanced his arguments firmly and clearly as he usually does. I accept that the allocation of funds to individual health authorities is a difficult matter. I was rather puzzled when the hon. Gentleman said that it is difficult to pin down anyone, especially a Minister, who has responsibility for the allocation of funds. Whatever else my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I may do, we try to act on the principle that the buck stops with us. I hope that I shall be able to explain how we provide moneys that will make it easier for the hon. Gentleman and others to fasten responsibility properly upon us if they wish to make us answer for our allocation policy.
There is always a distinction to be drawn between our responsibilities for overall planning and the distribution of resources throughout the country and the day-to-day decision making, which we think should rightly be left to those in the district health authorities and in the units below them. We believe that that should take place as close to the patient—to the coalface as it were—as is possible.
9.15 pm
It will never be possible to devise a system for allocating funds across the country that will, at all times, be accepted by each and every health authority as fair and proper. We all know that funds are not distributed fairly

and evenly now, so we try to adjust their distribution within the growing resources that we are allocating to the NHS. Whatever the system, those who receive a larger share of the growth money will still complain and will want a larger share. Those not receiving any growth money—or even suffering a reduction if they are overresourced or over-provided with acute beds, such as the authority that serves the constituency of the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras—will always complain.
We divide the national cake between 14 regional health authorities. It would be impossible, from the centre, to achieve the right result for 192 district health authorities. To apply centrally the criteria set out in paragraphs (a) to (m) of the new clause would involve a substantial number of additional officials, with the result that Ministers and officials together could get it wrong in many areas. We must distribute to the regions and allow them to distribute to the districts.
We work on the basis that we inherited—a formula devised in 1976 by the resource allocation working party under the previous Labour Government. The formula does not go into the detail suggested by the hon. Gentleman in the new clause. It identifies a target allocation for each region, which is principally derived from population data weighted by age, sex and mortality rates. We apply that formula to each region and a RAWP target is produced. The Government's policy is to distribute resources in the light of those targets, trying to equalise them fairly across the country.
I never leap to the defence of RAWP as the perfect formula, but I do not criticise it because I use it. Nor do I criticise the Labour Government for introducing it. The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras lives in an over-target district in an over-target region and, perhaps, may not see the qualities of RAWP. I defend the RAWP system as the only formula that we have and the only formula on which anybody is likely to agree in the foreseeable future.
When, by common consent across the country, we achieve an understanding that there are some imperfections in the formula, we make adjustments. For example, cases are made by regions such as Oxford, which said that we were not taking adequate account of anticipated population growth and that we were looking backwards too much, so we made some recent changes to the capital allocation. I do not believe that a better formula will be devised for our allocations to regions. Therefore, we propose to continue to distribute using that target.
The regions allocate to each of their districts. Regional health authority to regional health authority, they do not all adopt the same policy of distribution. Most of them use RAWP or a version of it, but take into account other matters such as the revenue consequences of capital schemes and so on.
The Government do not wash their hands of any responsibility. As part of our annual review and accountability process, we sometimes discuss with regions the distribution of resources to their districts. In our annual review and discussions on future policy, we reach agreement with the regions so that when they distribute their money we do not wash our hands of it. They are distributing it on a basis that we have found satisfactory, so we share responsibility with them.
It is right to leave it to the regions to sort out the rows between Southend on the one hand and Hackney on the other. They must look at the detail and make their best assessment of the relative needs of districts. Even though


gainers and losers complain about the regions, if Ministers and officials tried to do the job centrally, they would complain even more.
As part of the accountability process, we make sure that we are on the same wavelength as the regions, that they follow a policy with which we are happy and that they can defend, and for which we can hold them to account. We also give general guidance on the development of services.
We have used that role to ask regional health authorities to give high priority in their policies to the services identified, for instance, in Care in Action. Thus, all the time we are looking at allocation policies by regions to make sure that high priority is given, for example, to geriatrics, the needs of the mentally handicapped, the mentally ill and so on.
We also identify specific problem areas. This year we are asking authorities to pay special attention to developing services for renal failure, coronary artery surgery, joint replacements—principally hip replacements — and bone marrow transplantation. We have identified those as areas where more needs to be done in large parts of the country. In other words, our central guidance is that those matters should receive attention in allocation policy.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Why is central provision not made in respect of fires in hospitals, an example of which has been drawn to the right hon. and learned Gentleman's attention? Why must there be reliance on regions to provide the funds, particularly when patient care is involved?

Mr. Clarke: The hon. Gentleman raises a valid point. There could be difficulties if there was an absolutely catastrophic fire and the entire district general hospital of an authority burnt down. During a year all sorts of unexpected events can occur within the territory of an authority; there might be a local dispute, an epidemic or a fire. Normally, contingency planning within an authority is expected to take care of such eventualities.
The problem that would be faced if we followed the suggestion of the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) and made central provision is that we should have to hold back some central reserve for that purpose. At present, we dispense the maximum money to health authorities and we have to say when people ask, "Why are you unable to find a few million pounds for this or that local project or service?" that we do not have the few million extra in our back pocket. "We have put the money out where it is needed," we say, "to the regional and district health authorities, and the result is that we do not have a contingency fund."
I accept, however, that if an utter catastrophe struck a district, we should probably, in the first instance, give the standard reply that it must deal with it out of its own budget, but we try not to be unreal in such matters, and circumstances could arise when we would have to intervene.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: As the Minister will be aware, there are people in the northern region, and particularly in my constituency, who are asking why funds were found immediately for a hospital in Port Stanley, but were not found for the hospital that services my constituency, where doctors suffered professionally, where nurses suffered and where, most of all, patients

suffered as a result of the inflexibility of the authorities concerned in providing the money necessary to secure repairs and restoration.

Mr. Clarke: I accept that the members and staff of the authority in question had an extremely difficult time following that event. The answer to the hon. Gentleman's first, and somewhat political, question is that the budget of that health authority is vastly greater than the budget of a little hospital at Port Stanley. It has proved, and usually is, possible in the kind of budgeting about which we are speaking—of the £15·5 billion distributed to 192 health authorities—to cope with contingencies; and I doubt whether they have quite the same slack in the budget in Port Stanley. Other than that, whatever the clause refers to and whatever my responsibilities extend to, they do not extend to the hospital at Port Stanley.
As for changes in allocations, I accept that the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) has a valid point—that it is made more difficult for health authorities when changes are made in the allocation at any stage after the start of the financial year—and he asked me to give an undertaking in principle, which I will, that wherever possible we should try to give authorities some certainty because any adjustments mid-year to the allocations of authorities are bound to be disruptive of planning and so on.
We cannot give an absolute guarantee never to adjust budgets for major purposes. A classic example of that, which caused a tremendous amount of controversy, was the July measures following the decision of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer after the last election. All cash-limited programmes throughout the Government were adjusted equally, and the effect on the Health Service was extremely difficult. Indeed, the two men who have cause to be grateful are the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) and the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson). Their whole campaign for cuts was given a new impetus by the July measures.

Mr. Dobson: Against cuts.

Mr. Clarke: Yes, against cuts. We are all against cuts. What happened then was that we had allocated growth money to the Health Service throughout the country. As a result of the economic crisis that we might have got into if the measures had not been taken, much of the growth had to be taken away from the health authorities and we were back where we started. The resulting difficulty for planning was successfully characterised as a cut by those who criticised it. Nevertheless, the Health Service, like every other service, would have suffered more if we had not taken the July measures and had gone on to the kind of grand slam currency and financial crisis in which the Labour party specialised when it was in office. That was an exceptional case. There have to be only good reasons for adjusting allocations in mid-year.
There are more mundane and day-to-day reasons why the Liberal amendment moved by the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire would not be acceptable. Changes in the precise level of the cash limits of individual health authorities have to be made throughout the year for technical or managerial reasons. I shall give one straightforward example. We have a system that enables money to be moved about if one authority at one point has a slight excess of funds for its immediate needs for its


capital programme and another authority is short of immediate funds. We call it a brokerage system. It is described as loans being made by one region to another. Regions operate the same brokerage arrangements between districts. If the new clause were made that could not continue. There would not be room for these straightforward modifications.
Sometimes we make other modifications, for example, to take account of movements in VAT. When we exempted contracted-out services from VAT that could have produced a windfall and caused great complaint from the Labour party if we had not adjusted the cash limits. These technical reasons would make the amendment impossible. In principle I agree with the hon. Member that it is desirable where possible to give certainty and not to make unnecessary adjustments in mid-year and certainly not in the last quarter of the year.
Turning briefly to Government amendments Nos. 13 and 15 and the consequential amendments that are being taken with them, these are technical amendments to a technical clause. Currently health authorities have a duty under section 97 of the National Health Service Act 1977, as amended by section 6 of the Health Services Act 1980, to contain expenditure within their allotments or cash limits. The Secretary of State is also required to fund that cash limit. The purpose of clause 3 is simply to make clear that these two duties receive quantitative definition on the date of notification of the cash limits. Looked at another way, the executive decision to set cash limits at a particular level becomes a statutory cash limit when it is notified or when any variation is notified. The purpose of the Government amendments before the House is to clarify that variations will include both increases and decreases in cash limits. I hope those amendments will be acceptable to the House.
For the reasons I have given I hope that hon. Members will withdraw the new clause and the amendments that they have tabled.

Mr. Dobson: I am reluctant to rise again as we have a lot before us, but I cannot let one or two things that the Minister has said go by, particularly his rewriting of economic history. I recall fighting a general election last year in which my Tory opponent was saying that everything was right in the world and the economy was booming. We now understand that the Lawson measures of July, about a month later, were introduced to prevent the underlying economic crisis getting out of hand. That is not as I recall it.
It is said that the Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away. The problem with Government Ministers is that they are quick to announce that they give but they are very reluctant to acknowledge that they also take away. The object of our amendment is to get them to acknowledge exactly what they are up to.
9.30 pm
I object to the resource allocation working party formula in practice. I objected to it before I was a Member for Parliament and I still object to it and its effects on my constituency. I do not object to its principles, which boil down to providing access to health care of equal standards to all citizens. It is a good formula for times of expansion,

but the detailed formula as used at present would be inadequate in times of expansion and is particularly inadequate in times of retrenchment.
The Minister says that it would be wrong for him and the Secretary of State to be involved in the detail of health provision in each health district. They are reluctant in their humble, Uriah Heep-like way to become involved in determining the detail of what goes on in district health authorities, in spite of the fact that recently they took powers to dismiss members of local authorities who did not do what the Secretary of State told them to do.
How different that is from the home life of our own dear Queen—or, in this case, of the Secretary of State for the Environment. After all, previously he was Secretary of State for Health and Social Security. He also said that he could not intervene because if he did he would have to recruit hordes of civil servants to do the job. Now that he is at the Department of the Environment, he has introduced rate-capping legislation which will give him the power and the duty to intervene in the most detailed way in the budgets of local authorities.
We say that what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, although we do not say that in relation to the new clause. We are not telling the Secretary of State that he should intervene in the actions of every district health authority in the country. We say that he should publicly acknowledge the effects on every district health authority of the funding that he proposes. If he did that he would be taking his responsibilities seriously, it would be fair to the district health authorities, fair to the people working in the Health Service and it would enable people to learn exactly who is responsible for what is wrong with aspects of the service in their area.

Question put and negatived.

New Clause 13

AMENDMENT TO SCHEDULE I OF THE SUPPLEMENTARY BENEFIT ACT 1976

'In the Table in paragraph 2 of Schedule 1 to the Supplementary Benefit Act 1976 after sub-paragraph (b) of paragraph 1 there shall be added the following sub-paragraph—

"(c) has been in receipt of an allowance under subparagraph (b) above for a period of not less than 50 weeks continuously or with such interruptions as may be prescribed.".'.—[Mrs. Beckett.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mrs. Margaret Beckett: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause is comparatively simple. It is appropriately titled, because individuals who draw supplementary benefit on the ground that they are unemployed are unlucky. Families in such circumstances are particularly unlucky. New clause 13 extends to such individuals, after about a year, the long-term rate of supplementary benefit to which at present they do not become entitled until they reach the age of 60.
The problem is difficult for everyone, and particularly for the Government. Every group, authority and commentator recognises that rules that might have had some validity —although one might criticise them —when unemployment was a comparatively minor problem cannot be held to be valid when unemployment is as high as it is today.
The argument that the unemployed should never be entitled to long-term supplementary benefit because that might act as a deterrent to their seeking a job has no value or plausibility at a time when no jobs are available, no matter how hard an individual may seek. It is especially unfortunate against the background of changes in social security which affect families with children.
The changes which the Government made to simplify the payment of single sums to those receiving supplementary benefit may have been justified on the grounds of greater efficiency, but they often restrict the availability of payments to families with children. If loopholes appear during determinations or appeals, whether on single payments or other matters, the Minister displays a turn of speed that would be the envy of a young lady whose name has been mentioned recently in the House—Zola Budd. No one has seen anything as fast as the Minister for Social Security in closing loopholes and getting through the House regulations to ensure that no loophole can be left through which someone might obtain a little more money.
I do not wish to be too unkind to the Minister, because once again we are trying to assist him in his struggle with his colleagues in the Treasury. We have all had such struggles with the Treasury in our time, but he is having an especially uphill struggle with this Chancellor. We know that the Minister needs help from us, because when we debated this matter in Committee the Minister explained that such a change — we were asking then only that long-term supplementary benefit should be extended to families with children—could not be made because the Government could not afford it. The Minister told us in Committee that it would cost about £220 million to extend long-term supplementary benefit to families with children, and, although he was quoting off the top of his head, he said that it would cost about £480 million to extend it to all unemployed people.
Yet within a week the Chancellor, in just two measures in his Budget — the lifting of investment income surcharge and the changes in stamp duty—gave away no less than £520 million, which is far more than is necessary to make the changes that we sought then or the changes that we seek in this new clause. The Chancellor was less than honest with the Minister, but I assure the Minister that we stand foursquare behind him in trying to get these changes which the Government can plainly afford. It is simply a matter of political choice.
In Committee we observed that the Government have made some movement on this matter during the past few years. In November 1981, they extended long-term supplementary benefit to some men aged more than 60 —those who were not registered—and in June 1983 they extended it to all men aged more than 60 irrespective of their circumstances. We thought that the Government were trying to proceed step by step, so we offered them the opportunity to extend supplementary benefit to families with children. However, they rejected our amendment. Now we are offering a different step that might meet with more approval. With this Government, it might pay to ask for more in order to negotiate down to something that might be acceptable. In the new clause, we ask for the extension of the long-term rate to all the unemployed. If the Minister can negotiate down to families with children—although we shall be sorry that everyone cannot get it—it will be a step in the right direction.
I am being slightly, but not entirely, flippant with the Minister. It is widely recognised that not only is this position anomalous but it is wholly unjust. The Social Security Advisory Committee has repeatedly pointed out the injustice that only the unemployed can draw long-term supplementary benefit. Its previous report drew attention to the ridiculous position of a family in such circumstances. The Minister will be aware that if the family separated, after a suitable period had elapsed, rile woman could claim the long-term rate in her own right for the children. The man would draw his own benefit, which would always be at the short-term rate. If the couple were reunited, they would return to being entitled only to the short-term rate.
As the Minister is aware, at present the difference between the long-term and the short-term rate for such a family is no less than £11 a week. That is a substantial sum for many households. For these households it is an enormous sum. They cannot afford to do without it. The short-term supplementary benefit rates are deliberately calculated to be a subsistence benefit which will keep body and soul together and on which people can live for a short time.
It has been recognised for many years that the rates are insufficient for people to live to a reasonable standard or anything approaching a lack of poverty for any length of time. That is why we have long-term rates of supplementary and other benefits. If it were not necessary for families to have a long-term rate on which to survive, the Government would have done away with it. Even the long-term rate is not generous, yet the families who draw supplementary benefit—through no fault of their own, but because there is no work in many, if not all, parts of the country—never reach a stage where they can draw this extra money.
There has not been much justification over the past few years for the anomaly. Everyone has called for its removal. That is my party's policy. How can the Minister justify maintaining this policy? In Committee he sought to justify it on the grounds of cost, but the Chancellor has removed that justification. How can the Minister justify refusing to accept this new clause?

Mr. Frank Field: It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) for a number of reasons, not least because she has put the case so comprehensively that following speakers can be brief. I wish to dwell upon two of the points that she made. First, she outlined how unjust it was that unemployed claimants should be stigmatised and draw less benefit. The ordinary rate of benefit continues for as long as they draw supplementary benefit, no matter how long they bear our unemployment.
I wish to make my first point on the theme of unemployment. One often hears unemployment talked about as if people are inheriting their just reward. The Prime Minister has won two elections by putting forward a clear policy — controlling the rise in prices by increasing the numbers of unemployed.
Tonight we are talking about how we should treat those people who have been conscripted into the unemployed army to fight the war against inflation. They are bearing our unemployment so that we can have lower prices. We treat them worse than any other claimants. No matter how long they bear our unemployment, they draw the ordinary rate of unemployment benefit, which is 25 per cent. below


the long-term rate. If we are serious about sharing the costs of unemployment more fairly we should extend the longterm rate to those who are successfully fighting our war and keeping down prices.
The second point that my hon. Friend mentioned was the poverty that the families who bear our unemployment for a long period face. Poverty today is different, thank goodness, from that of the 1930s. It is not so easy to spot poor people today by the way that they dress, thank God. Many poor people do not have a much worse diet than many other ordinary people, and we can thank God for that.
This year it was brought home to me when I visited my constituents just how poverty affects people in Mrs. Thatcher's Britain in 1984. It is seen when one goes into their homes, and notices them bend down at the hearth to switch on the fire. It means that for most of the day, when visitors are not present, there is no heating.
9.45 pm
For the first time ever, many of my constituents who are bearing our unemployment face the horrendous prospect of taking to their beds not just for part of each day to keep warm during daylight hours, but for weeks. Poverty is beginning to affect people in that way, especially those who must live on the ordinary rate of supplementary benefit.
If we are moved by the arguments that the war against inflation is most important, the community should ensure the costs of that war bear a little more fairly on some individuals and families. If we are concerned that some people should not have a standard of living that is far below that obtained by most others, such that people cannot even keep warm, we should seek ways to persuade the Minister to extend the long-term rate of supplementary benefit to those who have borne our unemployment for more than a year.
It does little good for the Minister to come to the House tonight and say that the money is not available. He must explain that the Government have priorities other than helping the poorest members of our community who bear unemployment.
I shall quote figures given in a previous debate by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher). As always, he was being gentle with the Government about the extent to which they have redistributed resources to the rich. My hon. Friend considered the Government's first Budget in 1979 and the amount of money that was given by the Government to those people who were called surtax payers at that time. The Government gave a little more than £1·5 billion. After four years of Conservative Government, we are talking about a cumulative total of £8 billion being given to the very richest members of our society. It is impossible for the Government to say that money to the tune of £220 million is not available. It is available, but the Government have chosen to give it to the richest, not to the poorest, on the grounds—so we were told in 1979—that such a policy would bring forward jobs. Since 1979 we have seen a massive increase in almost every hon. Member's constituency in the numbers of people who have been conscripted into the army to fight the war against inflation.
I hope that the Minister will tell us tonight, first, that the Government intend to share the costs of bearing our

unemployment more fairly and, secondly and perhaps more importantly, that the Government will respond to the real horror faced by unemployed families who have borne our unemployment for many a year. I hope that the Government will respond more constructively and compassionately to those needs tonight than they have done in any other debate in the past four years.

Mr. Kirkwood: I shall contribute briefly to the debate by saying that Alliance Members subscribe to the sentiments expressed by the hon. Members for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) and for Birkenhead (Mr. Field). We have always taken that view. If the amendment is pressed to a Division we shall be joining the official Opposition in the Lobby.
I am sure that the hon. Member for Derby, South was right to say that the Minister is operating under financial constraints. We are not daft. We know that that is true. I shall take this opportunity to ask the Minister whether it is true that he is operating within financial constraints and, if so, whether he has a level of priorities, at least in his own mind, of spending money if he were given the chance. I hope that the Minister will try to order in his own mind and explain for the benefit of the House where in his list of priorities comes the need to extend the long-term rate of supplementary benefit to families with children, if he found the necessary £220 million, or to extend benefits across the board to all unemployed persons. Where does that priority come—is it high, low or somewhere in between? The hon. Gentleman must have an idea. We on the Opposition Benches attach an extremely high priority to redressing the anomaly and injustice of, and the dire poverty that is caused by, this part of the social security law. I support the amendment, and ask the Minister to address his mind to that question.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Few issues fill me with greater anger than issues such as this. It is not for me or any of my hon. Friends to claim a monopoly of compassion, but I believe that the Government fail to understand the misery, deprivation and poverty in which millions live today.
I see my commitment to Socialism in the context of believing that all of us as individuals, irrespective of our political persuasions, have a duty at least to look after and pay respect to those in need. At the root of the amendment is the commitment of the British Labour party to those who we know are in need and living in very deprived conditions. There must be a responsibility on Government to understand that, when moneys are available, they should be made available to that group of people.
Not just Opposition Members but all Members of the House must regularly receive correspondence from people living in poverty, who are hiding their problem through pride. They are begging the Government to give them what they so desperately need. How can we justify the expenditure of £350 million by the Government on a measure that we debated the other night in relation to the investment income surcharge, when possibly as few as 250,000 people will benefit from it? To benefit from that, people must be in receipt of over £140 a week. We know that for a similar amount of money a measure could have been introduced by the Government, in supporting our amendment, that would raise many more people out of the poverty in which they live, at least give them a little more hope, and help them to maintain their self-respect.
I find it hard, irrespective of my politics but acknowledging and respecting the rights of others to hold their own philosophy and have a commitment to other political principles, to understand how those people cannot concede the case on this important issue. Something must be done. The voice of the poor people must be heard by Government. Ministers should not come to the Dispatch Box, as they do repeatedly at Question Time after Question Time, whether it is the Treasury, the Department of Health and Social Security or the Department of Employment, and answer questions so insensitively as they have done over the past months. An appeal is coming from every person who lives on supplementary benefit or unemployment benefit to which supplementary benefit is added. They are saying that they cannot afford to live and that they need the money. The Government must be forthcoming in the debate.

Dr. Boyson: I reply to what I take to have been the intention of the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett), who moved the new clause. The new clause would not achieve her aim. It would reduce from 52 to 50 weeks only the movement from short-term to long-term supplementary benefit for those receiving it. I know that that was not the Opposition's intention.
According to the hon. Lady, everybody wants the change that she suggests. In politics, it is those who are not responsible for paying out who make the demands. I should like gently to make the point that the two-layer system of supplementary benefit was introduced by a Labour Government in 1966. That was when the long-term addition was introduced. One cannot claim that the compassion is all on one side and the hard-liners all on the other. It was a Labour Government who brought in the division.
In fairness, one must also remember that the purchasing power of the supplementary benefit allowances is twice what it was when they were introduced in 1948. I do not deny that people would like more and that in many cases they need more, but we must put the matter into perspective.
It was a Labour Government who brought in the division, and a Labour Government could have wiped it out between 1974 and 1979. They did not do so. It is nonsense for hon. Members to claim that everyone agrees with what they wish to do, when they failed to do it themselves when they had the opportunity. That is unfair, and it does not strengthen their arguments.

Mr. Frank Field: None of my hon. Friends has defended the actions of the previous Labour Goverment in that respect.
The hon. Gentleman has referred to the purchasing power of the benefit rates. No one would dispute that in real terms the benefit rates are substantially higher than they were in 1948. Nevertheless, we are asking single people on the ordinary rate of supplementary benefit to exist on less than £4 a day. That is a sum that most hon. Members could lose in their small change. We are asking an army of people to cover all their needs on that sum. It is a small sum to live on from day to day and year to year.

Dr. Boyson: I take the hon. Gentleman's point. However, I think that it is interesting to compare the purchasing levels. The purchasing power of the old-age pension, supplementary benefit and other payments is twice what it was in 1948.
The Government have shown concern for people. The hon. Lady was quite fair about that. In 1980, the qualifying period for the long-term rate was reduced from two years to one year at a cost of £31 million a year. That change helped many people. The idea behind the longterm rate is that people have to replace more household goods and so on, and they should be able to do so without having to apply for special payments.
Furthermore, in May 1983, we gave the long-term rate of supplementary benefit to all men aged over 60, bringing in all the unemployed between the ages of 60 and 65. That measure cost £28 million. We recognised that there was a need to be met. As I told the Committee, the cost of extending that rate to all unemployed people would be £480 million. It would be £220 million for those with children. If one reduced the qualifying age to 50, the cost would be £90 million.
As the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) said, it is a question of priorities. He also asked me directly what my priorities would be. If we could afford increased expenditure on social security, I should not answer that question off the top of my head now. I should go through the list. Indeed, earlier today I listed certain priorities that needed to be tackled. They were general views which may be changed after discussion with colleagues and others. [Interruption.] Other parties may not talk to one another, but we do. We even talk within the Department. That is one of the attributes of Conservative Members and Ministers.
I have great respect for the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) as I have for most Opposition Members. When we took over from the Labour Government short-term supplementary benefit for a couple was £23·25—

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,

That, at this day's sitting, the Health and Social Security Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Sainsbury.]

Question again proposed, That the clause be read a Second time.

Dr. Boyson: Perhaps I may continue into the second house on this. In November 1978, short-term supplementary benefit was £23·25 for a couple. Indexed for inflation, that would have been £41·26 in November 1983. We had in fact increased it to £43·50. The long-term rate was £31·55 in 1978. Indexed for inflation, it would have been £51·55 in 1983, but it was in fact £54·55. No one can say that the Government have done nothing. In tight circumstances, we have done all that we possibly could.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Does the Minister agree that one of the justifications for dropping the threshold to the age of 60 was that the Government believed that people over that age were unlikely to find work? Now that there is clear evidence that in many parts of the country people over 50 or 55 are unlikely to find work, should not a similar argument prevail?

Dr. Boyson: The hon. Gentleman is quite right. The 60 to 65s were given priority because of their difficulty in finding work. Within the funds available, we made them a priority. I do not disagree with the hon. Gentleman on that.
In conclusion, priorities must be set within the total £37 billion social security budget, although we are spending 27 per cent. more in real terms than when we came to office. We cannot accept the intention of the new clause. I therefore ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote against it.

Mrs. Beckett: I shall reply briefly to some of the points made by the Minister. As is all too often the case with the Government, the Minister spent a considerable time talking about what happened under the Labour Government, going back even further than usual.
The Minister will not deny that over the years we have sought consistently to improve the social security system. No doubt in later debates today he or his colleagues will put the same argument on other issues, pointing out that the Labour Government did not make such and such an improvement X years ago. He should understand that we made improvements then and we seek further improvements now.
The Minister referred to 1966. He must recognise that under the Government unemployment is unfortunately on a scale not seen in this country for many decades, certainly much further back than 1966. There is also a sense of hopelessness about future employment prospects that this country has not known for a very long time. It is, therefore, somewhat invidious to compare present circumstances with those in 1966.
The Minister pointed our that the Government had increased spending on the overall budget by 27 per cent. in real terms. We recognise that, but we also recognise that that is not because the Government are overflowing with the milk of human kindness, wishing to rush around handing out money right, left and centre, but because, due to the Government's disastrous economic policies, so many people have lost all other means of support and have no choice but to become dependent on social security.
I hope—although I must admit it is a faint hope—that I shall not have to make my next point again tonight. As the Minister knows only too well, the overwhelming differences between the economic difficulties faced by this Government and those faced by the previous Labour Government, and is not only that many of them are of this Government's own making but that throughout their period in office they have enjoyed £10,000 million to £14,000 million per year in income from the North sea. If the Labour Government had enjoyed such an income, and certainly if we had enjoyed such an income before the Prime Minister had had a chance to wreak such damage on the British economy, we would have transformed the social security system, and we would not be facing this debate.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 48, Noes 165.

Division No. 272]
[10.5 pm


AYES


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Corbyn, Jeremy


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'I)


Bermingham, Gerald
Dewar, Donald


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Dobson, Frank


Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)
Dubs, Alfred


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Cohen, Harry
Fisher, Mark


Corbett, Robin
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald



Freud, Clement
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Garrett, W. E.
Short, Mrs R.(W'hampt'n NE)


Gould, Bryan
Skinner, Dennis


Harman, Ms Harriet
Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Stott, Roger


Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)
Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)


Howells, Geraint
Wallace, James


Kennedy, Charles
Wareing, Robert


Kirkwood, Archibald
Wigley, Dafydd


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Williams, Rt Hon A.


Marek, Dr John
Wilson, Gordon


Meacher, Michael
Winnick, David


Meadowcroft, Michael
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)



Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Nellist, David
Mr. Frank Haynes and


Pike, Peter
Mr. Jack Dormand.


NOES


Alexander, Richard
Grant, Sir Anthony


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Greenway, Harry


Amess, David
Gummer, John Selwyn


Ancram, Michael
Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)


Arnold, Tom
Hawkins, C. (High Peak)


Ashby, David
Hayhoe, Barney


Aspinwall, Jack
Hickmet, Richard


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Hirst, Michael


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Holt, Richard


Batiste, Spencer
Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)


Bellingham, Henry
Irving, Charles


Bendall, Vivian
Jackson, Robert


Bennett, Sir Frederic (T'bay)
King, Rt Hon Tom


Benyon, William
Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)


Berry, Sir Anthony
Lang, Ian


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Lester, Jim


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)


Body, Richard
Lilley, Peter


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Lloyd, Ian (Havant)


Bottomley, Peter
Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)
Lord, Michael


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Luce, Richard 


Braine, Sir Bernard
Lyell, Nicholas 


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
McCurley, Mrs Anna 


Bright, Graham
Macfarlane, Neil 


Brinton, Tim
MacGregor, John


Brooke, Hon Peter
Maclean, David John


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Malins, Humfrey 


Buck, Sir Antony
Marland, Paul


Burt, Alistair
Mather, Carol 


Butterfill, John
Maude, Hon Francis


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Chapman, Sydney
Mayhew, Sir Patrick


Chope, Christopher
Mellor, David


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Cockeram, Eric
Mills, lain (Meriden)


Colvin, Michael
Mitchell, David (NW Hants)


Conway, Derek
Moynihan, Hon C.


Coombs, Simon
Murphy, Christopher


Cope, John
Neubert, Michael


Couchman, James
Newton, Tony


Cranborne, Viscount
Nicholls, Patrick


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Norris, Steven


Dorrell, Stephen
Onslow, Cranley


Dover, Den
Osborn, Sir John


Dunn, Robert
Ottaway, Richard


Evennett, David
Page, John (Harrow W)


Fallon, Michael
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


Favell, Anthony
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Fookes, Miss Janet
Powell, William (Corby)


Forth, Eric
Powley, John


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Fox, Marcus
Price, Sir David


Gale, Roger
Proctor, K. Harvey


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Rhodes James, Robert


Glyn, Dr Alan
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Robinson, Mark (N'port W)


Goodlad, Alastair
Roe, Mrs Marion


Gorst, John
Rowe, Andrew


Gower, Sir Raymond
Ryder, Richard






Sackville, Hon Thomas
Trotter, Neville


Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Twinn, Dr Ian


St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Viggers, Peter


Shelton, William (Streatham)
Waddington, David


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Soames, Hon Nicholas
Walden, George


Speed, Keith
Waller, Gary


Speller, Tony
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Spencer, Derek
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Squire, Robin
Wheeler, John


Stanbrook, Ivor
Whitfield, John


Stern, Michael
Wilkinson, John


Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Stevens, Martin (Fulham)
Winterton, Nicholas


Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Wolfson, Mark


Stradling Thomas, J.
Wood, Timothy


Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Woodcock, Michael


Thompson, Donald (Calder V)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)



Thorne, Neil (llford S)
Tellers for the Noes:


Thurnham, Peter
Mr. Douglas Hogg and


Tracey, Richard
Mr. John Major.

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 15

INCREASE IN SICKNESS BENEFIT

'The Secretary of State shall in preparing the increase in sickness benefit in November 1984 include in it such sum as is necessary to make good the effect of section 1(1) and 1(2)(a) of the Social Security (No. 2) Act 1980 upon such benefit.'.—[Mrs. Beckett.]

Brought up and read the First time.

Mrs. Beckett: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take:
New clause 16—Increase in maternity allowance—
'The Secretary of State shall in preparing the increase in maternity allowance in November 1984 include in it such sum as is necessary to make good the effect of section 1(1) and 1(2) (a) of the Social Security (No. 2) Act 1980 upon such benefit.'.
New clause 17—Increase in invalidity pension—
'The Secretary of State shall in preparing the increase in invalidity pension in November 1984 include in it such sum as is necessary to make good the effect of section 1(1) and 1(2)(a) of the Social Security (No. 2) Act 1980 upon such benefit.'.

Mrs. Beckett: This is a relatively simple matter on which we wish to take the opportunity to press the Government. The three new clauses deal with another area of deprivation. In 1980, the Government decided arbitrarily to bring in an abatement of several benefits of the order of 5 per cent., in lieu, so they said, at the time of taxation, the theory being that at some stage in future the benefits would be taxable, and, until they were, their value would be reduced by 5 per cent. to make approximately the same claim on Government resources. At that time, there was a protest. Since that time, there has been increasing protest. The abatement appears now to be even more arbitrary than it did when first introduced, and certainly more arbitrary than in recent years.
In the last Budget, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in one of his few moments of generosity, although perhaps slightly ill-directed, gave large increases in tax allowances. Whereas a few months ago it might have been possible for the Minister to argue that a comparatively small number of people were affected by the abatement, the Chancellor, by his action, has brought more people

within the ambit. Even those who would not have had to pay tax on the allowance if they had been brought into tax are losing by the abatement. Since, by definition, they are among the worst off in society, otherwise they would be within the bracket to make them liable to tax, yet again we are in the area where the Government are taking from the poor to give to others of the poor or to the rich, which is their usual pattern.
It is estimated that in the coming year the numbers receiving sickness benefit will be of the order of 150,000, those receiving maternity allowance, 140,000, and those receiving invalidity allowance, 740,000. I would be grateful if the Minister can say whether the Government have any figures of what proportion of these individuals are affected by the abatement, but would not come into taxation.
We wish to press the Government on this now, because it is comparatively recently that the Minister's colleagues in the Treasury told the House that they have no immediate plans to bring these benefits into taxation. The unfairness and arbitrariness of the Government's action will persist, therefore, and become daily more evident. We ask the Government to tell the House when they expect to remove this abatement.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Tony Newton): As the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) has explained, the background to the abatement and, therefore, the new clause is what I can claim to be the long-agreed need on both sides of the House to make sickness benefit, maternity allowance and invalidity pension taxable. It is generally accepted that that is a reasonable policy; otherwise those whose incomes are solely made up of earnings are less well treated than those incomes made up partly of earnings and partly of the relevant benefits.
Because it is not yet possible to bring these benefits into tax—that is a matter for the Chancellor, and I cannot add to what the hon. Lady said — the abatement introduced in 1980, it is argued, should be restored in any event. On sickness benefit and maternity allowance, 1.hat is not an argument on which I would place very much weight. By definition, these are short-term benefits and, therefore, go to those who have recently been in the labour market and are likely to have other earnings. Generally they are above the tax threshold.
While I cannot answer the hon. Lady's question about the proportion of those receiving sickness benefit and maternity allowance who would be in the tax bracket, the overwhelming probability is that most of them would, for the reasons that I have given.
I recognise that the position is somewhat more complex on invalidity benefit, because undoubtedly not all those on invalidity benefit would be liable to tax if that benefit were brought into tax. The figures have recently been given to the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John), and suggest that on the basis of last year's statistics — the latest information we have from the Inland Revenue—about 25 per cent. would not be liable to tax at all and a further 20 per cent. or so would pay less tax than if the benefit were increased by 5 per cent. and tax were introduced.
I accept that the abatement was not a perfect solution to the interim problem of achieving equity through bringing these benefits into taxation, but there are three points that the House should bear in mind. First, on present benefit levels it is likely that the taxation yield will be


about £140 million, against the cost of restoring the abatement on invalidity pension of £60 million. In other words, those on invalidity benefit generally and on average — I acknowledge that this is against the background of the figures that I have just given—would be worse off if taxation were introduced and the abatement restored. Many of them are, in fact, better off under the existing system than they would be if the hon. Lady had her way.
Secondly, we have gone some way towards assisting those who in some respects may be judged to be in the most difficult position by restoring the abatement of the invalidity allowance — the age-related increase of the invalidity benefit, which is largest for those who are disabled at the younger end of the age range. We restored that abatement within a year of the original proposals. That has been of some help and was intended as a token of our good intent.
Thirdly, by abolishing the invalidity trap last year we have ensured that the least well-off of those on that benefit do not suffer financially from the abatement, because they will gain in supplementary benefit anything that they lose in the 5 per cent. abatement. That previously was not possible, because 50,000 or 60,000 were trapped within invalidity benefit and not able to qualify for the long-term rate of supplementary benefit for complicated and technical reasons of which the House will be aware. By having abolished that part of the system, we have averted the effect of the abatement on the poorest invalidity pensioners. I think that that was the right priority at a time of difficulty over resources. As always, the issue is one of priorities and I do not believe that the Opposition have made out the case for choosing the priority that we are debating. If all three amendments were accepted and implemented, the cost would be approaching £100 million.
I am glad to repeat the unequivocal pledge that the Government have given previously, that the abatement will be restored when invalidity benefit is brought into tax. When sickness benefit and the maternity allowance are brought into tax we shall consider the abatement of those benefits as well. Against that background, I cannot advise the House to accept the amendment.

Mrs. Beckett: I am grateful to the Minister for a reply which was characteristically clear. Of course, it would be pleasing if he were clear and also gave us the answer that we wish to hear. He has given us some interesting figures. I understand that 185,000 of those on invalidity benefit are losing 5 per cent. of the value of the benefit because of the abatement and would not be paying tax if the circumstances were as he described and the benefit were brought into taxation. These people should not be losing, and they would not lose if the benefit were brought into tax. I understand also that a further 20 per cent. of those on invalidity benefit would retain some of the value of such a move. About 148,000 would be in that position. I estimate that about 330,000 are suffering from the abatement in the way that the Minister describes.
I recognise that there are problems with the balancing effects that the Minister has described, and I recognise that some of the changes which the Government have introduced have been in the right direction. However, it is not good enough for the Minister and his Treasury

colleagues to keep on saying that the abatement will be restored. In effect, they are saying, "Some day the prince will arrive, wave his magic wand and bring the policy change into effect—but not today." It has been "not today" for far too long. That has been the position for a considerable period, and for the sake of over 300,000 beneficiaries who are now losing out—

Mr. Newton: I should make it clear that my figures relate to last year. The figures for this year are not available. The hon. Lady's figures are correct on the estimates that have been given, but I should like her to acknowledge that about 100,000 of the 330,000 are on supplementary benefit and will not be suffering the financial effects of the abatement. This means that the number affected is rather smaller than she suggests.

Mrs. Beckett: I accept that. I agree that we are dealing with those who are not the worst off because of some of the changes that have been made, but we are dealing with those who are just above that level. These are people who are suffering because the change has not been made for which we are calling in the new clause. For that reason, we seek to press the new clause to a Division.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 40, Noes 155.

Division No. 273
[10.28 pm


AYES


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Kirkwood, Archibald


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Bermingham, Gerald
Marek, Dr John


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Meacher, Michael


Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)
Meadowcroft, Michael


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)
Milian, Rt Hon Bruce


Cohen, Harry
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Corbett, Robin
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Nellist, David


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'I)
Pike, Peter


Dobson, Frank
Skinner, Dennis


Dubs, Alfred
Stott, Roger


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Wallace, James


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Wareing, Robert


Fisher, Mark
Wigley, Dafydd


Freud, Clement
Williams, Rt Hon A.


Garrett, W. E.
Wilson, Gordon


Harman, Ms Harriet
Winnick, David 


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)



Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Howells, Geraint
Mr. Frank Haynes and


Kennedy, Charles
Mr. Jack Dormand.


NOES


Alexander, Richard
Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Buck, Sir Antony


Amess, David
Burt, Alistair


Ancram, Michael
Butterfill, John


Arnold, Tom
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Ashby, David
Chapman, Sydney


Aspinwall, Jack
Chope, Christopher


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Batiste, Spencer
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)


Bellingham, Henry
Cockeram, Eric


Bendel!, Vivian
Colvin, Michael


Berry, Sir Anthony
Conway, Derek


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Coombs, Simon


Body, Richard
Cope, John


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Couchman, James


Bottomley, Peter
Cranborne, Viscount


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Braine, Sir Bernard
Dorrell, Stephen


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Dover, Den


Bright, Graham
Dunn, Robert


Brinton, Tim
Evennett, David


Brooke, Hon Peter
Fallon, Michael






Favell, Anthony
Lyell, Nicholas 


Fookes, Miss Janet
Macfarlane, Neil 


Forth, Eric
MacGregor, John


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Maclean, David John


Fox, Marcus
Major, John


Gale, Roger
Malins, Humfrey


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Marland, Paul


Glyn, Dr Alan
Mather, Carol


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Maude, Hon Francis


Goodlad, Alastair
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Gorst, John
Mayhew, Sir Patrick


Gower, Sir Raymond
Mellor, David


Grant, Sir Anthony
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Greenway, Harry
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Gummer, John Selwyn
Mills, lain (Meriden)


Hayhoe, Barney
Mitchell, David (NW Hants)


Hickmet, Richard
Moynihan, Hon C.


Hirst, Michael
Murphy, Christopher


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Newton, Tony


Holt, Richard
Nicholls, Patrick


Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)
Norris, Steven


Jackson, Robert
Onslow, Cranley


King, Rt Hon Tom
Osborn, Sir John


Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)
Ottaway, Richard


Lester, Jim
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)
Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil


Lilley, Peter
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Lloyd, Ian (Havant)
Powell, William (Corby)


Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)
Powley, John


Lord, Michael
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Luce, Richard
Price, Sir David



Proctor, K. Harvey
Thorne, Neil (llford S)


Rhodes James, Robert
Thurnham, Peter


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Tracey, Richard


Robinson, Mark (N'port W)
Trotter, Neville


Roe, Mrs Marion
Twinn, Dr Ian


Rowe, Andrew
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Sackville, Hon Thomas
Viggers, Peter


Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Waddington, David


St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Walden, George


Shelton, William (Streatham)
Waller, Gary


Sims, Roger
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Wheeler, John


Soames, Hon Nicholas
Whitfield, John


Speed, Keith
Wilkinson, John


Speller, Tony
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Spencer, Derek
Winterton, Nicholas


Squire, Robin
Wolfson, Mark


Stanbrook, Ivor
Wood, Timothy


Stern, Michael
Woodcock, Michael


Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Stevens, Martin (Fulham)



Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Tellers for the Noes:


Stradling Thomas, J.
Mr. Archie Hamilton and


Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Mr. Micheal Neubect


Thompson, Donald (Calder V)
Question accordingly negatived.


Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

Question accordingly negatived.

Health and Social Security Bill

New Clause 18

PROMOTION OF HEALTH EDUCATION

'It shall be the duty of any Family Practitioner Committee to promote health education within their area.'—[Mr. Dobson.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Dobson: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker: We will take with this the following:
New clause 20—Free medical services—
'All services for which Family Practitioner Committees are responsible shall be available free to:

(a) persons over 60 years of age and under 19 years of age;
(b) pregnant women;
(c) women who have had a baby within 12 months;
(d) war pensioners;
(e) persons in receipt of family income supplement or supplementary benefit;
(f) persons receiving less than the national average wage and their dependants, and
(g) persons suffering from such medical disorders as the Secretary of State may determine by regulations.'.

New clause 21 — Jurisdiction of Health Service Commissioner—
'All aspects of the work of Family Practitioner Committees shall be within the jurisdiction of the Health Service Commissioner.'.
New clause 22—Deputising services—
'It shall be the duty of each Family Practitioner Committee to establish, run and monitor a deputising service for general medical practitioners in their area, the service to be financed by those practitioners using the service and may where a Family Practitioner Committee considers it appropriate be provided in conjunction with one or more other Family Practitioner Committees.'.
New clause 23—Cancer screening—
'It shall be the duty of each Family Practitioner Committee to establish, run and monitor a call and recall system for screening all female persons of the appropriate age group in their area for breast cancer and cervical cancer.'.

Mr. Dobson: These new clauses are related to family practitioner committees. It has become clear in recent months that the Minister has been dissatisfied with the functioning of these committees. Their inadequacies were clearly highlighted in the monitoring of the deputising services. Having been a member of a family practitioner committee I have always been rather dubious about their role and have felt that it needed to be strengthened to give them more positive, more innovative and more preventive functions.
When I suggested this in Committee I was roundly denounced by Conservative Back Benchers who said that I was putting forward Socialist dogma and worse. The interesting thing was that when the Minister replied, he said that broadly speaking he agreed with most of what I had said and that when the Government finally published the report of a working party on family practitioner committees I would be fairly satisfied with it. Indeed, that has proved to be the case.
I shall pick out one or two items that we regard as positive functions for family practitioner committees that should be emphasised. We do not think that there has been anything like as much progress with health education as there should have been. It is clearly a grass roots matter. It is no use trying to do it all from the centre through the

Health Education Council or through the hospital service because most people's only contact with the Health Service and the only time they think about health matters is when they need the services.
In the Labour party we have been receiving considerable representation about health education and environmental health from the trade union movement and in particular from women members of trade unions. My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) and I recently met a delegation of women from the Amalgamated Union of Engineering Workers who put forward some cogent points for improvements in health education. One suggestion was the improved labelling of drugs and pharmaceutical products, in particular those affecting pregnant women. If a drug might adversely affect a pregnant woman they suggested that on the container there might be a symbol showing the silhouette of a woman, in biblical terms literally great with child, with a cross over that figure, to remind not just patients but doctors of the potential danger. We have to be sympathetic to doctors because, with the proliferation of drugs, they have difficulty in maintaining an adequate knowledge of the adverse and side effects of all sorts of drugs.
The General, Municipal, Boilermakers and Allied Trades Union, which is not normally associated in the public mind with matters concerning women, has produced an excellent leaflet entitled:
Your reproductive health at work — A GMB guide to hazards in the work place".
It is worth pointing out that it refers not just to the reproductive hazards for women but also for men, who can be affected by radiation or dust. There should be far more emphasis within family practitioner services on preventive measures. Although this might not be done exactly as suggested by the new clauses, there should be a specific duty on family practitioner committees to do far more to promote the general health of the community as well as trying to deal with people when they get sick.
A more specific aspect is screening for cervical and breast cancer. These types of cancer are particularly susceptible to treatment if they are caught early enough. If those two terrible afflictions are diagnosed early by a screening programme, in nine cases out of 10 things can be put right and lives can be saved. The arrangements are exceedingly hit and miss. The Government have abandoned the national cervical cancer recall system to save on the salaries of 156 lost jobs. That was not a good move. I admit that the system was not particularly satisfactory, but nothing has taken its place.
We believe that family practitioner committees should take a more positive role in screening women for cervical and breast cancer. It would have been difficult to do that with the old manual record systems, but with the computerisation of FPC records we should get on with it. It would be easy for FPCs to send letters to every woman in the appropriate age groups. Not only should women be recalled for further screening, they should be sent letters calling them for an initial screening at the clinic or by their GP. At least 2,000 women a year die of cancer of the cervix. We cannot let the matter rest until a proper screening system is established. The job would be best done by FPCs. New technology makes it possible and cheap. I hope that the Minister will agree with us.
The operation of deputising services is more controversial. The monitoring of deputising services is


inadequate. It is difficult, even with monitoring, to reconcile the demands for proper health cover at night with the profit motive of the deputising companies.
There is a conflict between the profit motive of the private deputising services and patient care. One could argue that the GP service is being privatised quietly at night and at weekends in some areas by the extension of the deputising service. Like Topsy, the service has just grown. It would be best all round if FPCs organised deputising services when local doctors believe that they are needed. Then there would be no conflict of interest. There would be clear responsibility. Professional and lay people would be readily equipped and available to organise and monitor the service. Standards would be bound to be raised.
The only people who could object to a publicly organised, non-profit making service are those who profit from the private companies which are supposed to provide the service. Such a service would be a credit to the medical profession and FPCs. Patients would be reassured by knowing that they could rely upon a public service rather than a hit and miss commercial deputising service.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: I sympathise with the hon. Gentleman's case, but is he not taking it too far? Surely the patient would feel better if treated by a known doctor who knows the case and the family, rather than by a stranger whom he has never seen before and will probably never see again, whether that stranger is from the private or public sector.

Mr. Dobson: If we debated that we should be here for a long time. Everyone would like to be treated by the same doctor at any time of the day or night, at all times of the year. Many doctors still do their best to provide that service. However, there has been a shift in the medical profession and in public expectation towards accepting treatment by a responsible, qualified doctor who has access to notes and knows what he is doing. At present 20 per cent. of people covered by general practitioner services are heavily covered by deputising services. We must accept that they are here to stay, but we must ensure that they function properly, however far they may have come from the ideal of the old-fashioned family doctor. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) does not agree with me, but there we are.
New clause 21 seeks to expose the entire functions of family practitioners' services—I do not mean individual doctors — to the scope of the Health Service ombudsman. In Committee I moved a rather obscure amendment to a schedule, and the Minister chided me for proposing something that did not cover as much as I might have suggested, so now I am suggesting the lot. Everything that family practitioner committees do should be open to examination by the Health Service ombudsman. At present, if someone who goes to a family practitioner committee is dissatisfied, he can go to the ombudsman with one part of his complaint, to the Council on Tribunals with another part, or to the General Medical Council with another part. That is unreasonable. The Minister responded to this by saying that the parliamentary ombudsman, who is also the Health Service ombudsman, is on the Council on Tribunals. He could have gone further and said that he is a member of the commission for local ombudsmen. That means nothing to an individual who is dissatisfied with something that the family practitioner

committee has done. We have an obligation to provide an easy, ready and sympathetic channel to deal properly with all complaints.
The Minister rightly said in Committee that he fears the development of the American idea of defensive medicine, where doctors are always considering what lawyers and courts might say about their actions. I agree that that would be a most reprehensible development, which we should do everything we can to fend off. However, the development of defensive medicine and adversarial activities in courts springs partly from the commercialisation of medicine in the United States which, thank God, is not yet so widespread here. The best method of avoiding defensive medicine is to provide a clear, cheap public means of obtaining satisfaction without resort to the courts. It would be a useful development if the Health Service ombudsman could extend his activities into this area.
Finally, I come to new clause 20, which relates to free medical services, and advocates that large groups of people should be entitled to free medical services. At present 70 per cent. of people are exempt from prescription charges, 45 per cent. are exempt from dental charges, and, as we learnt tonight, 35 per cent. are exempt from charges on glasses. We are seeking to bring them together to ensure that they are treated in the same way. Paragraph (a) states that all persons aged more than 60 should be entitled to free prescriptions, dental treatment and glasses. We do not want a distinction between men and women at 60 or 65, and we should equalise up rather than equalise down.
The exemption from charges should be extended from people aged 16 to people aged 19. At present, youngsters are exempted from charges if they are in full-time education. However, many of the parents of youngsters in full-time education are better off than are the parents of those not in full-time education.
We believe that the exemption from charges allowed to young people undergoing full-time education should be extended to those young people in part-time education and on training schemes and those who are in badly paid employment, because at the moment some of the worse off young people pay charges while young people at Eton do not.
Most of the other categories are fairly obvious and most of those that we have itemised exist already. We suggest also that people who receive less than the national average wage and their dependants should be exempt from all health charges. We take the Government's arguments in the Health Service debate last week at face value. They said that the charges should be paid only by those who could afford them. If the Government maintain that view, we believe that those earning less than the national average cannot afford them, and, therefore, we should like to see the exemption extended to them.
We wish to empower the Minister—he may have the power already although it is expressed rather obscurely—to include in the exemptions—if that is the right way to describe it—a series of medical disorders which, for these purposes, would include blind or partially-sighted people so that they would not have to pay for glasses. That was a matter to which we referred earlier.
I have always been a total objector to all health charges. I believe that we are putting forward a compromise in these amendments. I believe, in principle, that all Health Service provision should be free of charges. I hope that the Labour party will enter the next election with a


commitment to an immediate and specific reduction in all charges when we become the Government, and the elimination of all charges within a specified time. The Prime Minister was almost announcing a 1,000-year Reich on Sunday, and needless to say the Labour party cannot yet specify what will go into its next election manifesto. We shall be aiming to reduce health charges as rapidly as we can, and I hope that we shall completely eliminate them.
We have included these proposals under the FPC part of the Bill because we want to emphasise, among other things, how important family practitioner services are. They are at the core of health provision. We should like to see the services improved and a more positive approach from Ministers and family practitioner committees. We should like to give a boost to all those working in the family practitioner-based services and ensure that all people benefit equally from the services that are being provided.

Mr. Meadowcroft: I support the group of amendments spoken to by the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson). Until I heard his last few words I had not realised that he was a member of that select coterie which, from time to time, when hon. Members are not listening too clearly, believes in utter candour.
He strangely told the House that he could not tell us precisely what would be in the Labour manifesto for the next general election.

Ms. Harriet Harman: He does not write it on his own. There are more of us than there are of the hon. Gentleman. We want our say.

Mr. Meadowcroft: I am not sure that that was entirely sedentary. The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras was telling us about the part that related to health. If we were coming towards a general election he might hope that with a bit of luck new clause 20(f) might not pass through the House because it is the proposal that would cause a vast amount of public expenditure, although I suspect that we all have a great deal of sympathy for his proposals. Three new clauses are particularly practical, and there should be no disagreement about them—they are new clauses 18, 20 and 23.
My experience with family practitioner committees has been almost universally bad. When I have come into contact with them in recent years, I have not been much impressed by their liberality and generosity of spirit towards the wider Health Service. In one respect they are one of the most self-defending organisations in the Health Service. The strange thing is that all that the Minister says about freeing the optical service, spreading it more widely and enabling it to become free of monopolist tendencies goes in the opposite direction when he refers to the FPCs. We are going away from a broader involvement of the FPCs in the Health Service, towards a narrower definition of what they should do. If one takes the narrow road, and opposes the new clause tabled by the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, the danger is that one encourages general practitioners to believe that the Health Service is about enhancing their specialties rather than insisting that, for example, one might see a paramedic before seeing a general practitioner. We are considering whether we can spread out the FPCs, given that they are to be free-standing bodies in future.
11 pm
The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras also referred to deputising services. One point that has not come out clearly is that one of the big factors determining whether they work satisfactorily is the relationship between where doctors live and where they practise, which has not been sufficiently examined. When doctors live and practise in the same area, particularly in inner city areas, they are not as anxious for private deputising services to come in, not least because the distances that they have to travel at night and the weekend are far less. They are more inclined to carry out those services themselves. I have noticed that in my own city. Those who live and practise in the same area, by and large tend to do more of their outof-hours calls than other people. The Minister might consider that matter, and encourage general practitioners to live and work in the inner city areas.
One of the great problems of trying to develop secure communities, in which health plays such a part, is that many of the professionals whom the people look up to do not live in the areas in which they work—not just doctors, but social workers, teachers and even probation officers. The tendency is to believe that success means getting out of such areas. That is particularly true of doctors, who are respected in such areas. Therefore, one hopes that a change will come about by giving the FPCs responsibility for deputising services in the way suggested by the new clause. There is much to be said for doctors' co-operatives, which work successfully in parts of the country. Anything that the FPCs could do to encourage doctors to work in co-operatives, on a non-profit-making basis, would be helpful.
The ombudsman, whether the parliamentary ombudsman, the local ombudsman or the Health Service ombudsman, does not pick up cases when something goes wrong, but has influence in assisting people to resolve a problem before there is a formal procedure. It is interesting to see how the existence of the ombudsman has had that effect in many cases. Where sometimes one part of a service might close ranks and prevent something from coming out into the open, the fact that the matter might go to the ombudsman has an effect. Therefore, it seems to be a logical and beneficial step to say that we should bring the affairs of the FPCs within the remit of the Health Service ombudsman.
Therefore, I am happy to commend this group of new clauses to my colleagues.

Mr. Couchman: I am mystified by new clause 18, which suggests that family practitioner committees should have a duty
to promote health education within their area".
A responsibility for health education is vested at present in the district health authorities, through the community services of those authorities, and it would be nonsense to transfer that duty from the district health authorities to the FPCs. Often on a comparatively limited budget, the DHAs are doing a good job. With their comparatively limited and largely clerical staff, the FPCs would be in no sense able to take on that duty. New clause 18 is complete nonsense.
My family are very pleased with the results that screening has had for us, and we have reason to be very thankful for it. I therefore have great sympathy for new clause 23. It is likely that when the FPCs acquire the hardware and software that the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) mentioned, they will be in


the best position to mount a proper screening service for breast cancer and cancer of the cervix. However, that clause is lumped in with new clause 20, which again seems to me to be nonsense. The House has already expressed its view on this matter today. I know that it is not the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras who decides which clauses should be lumped together, but if new clause 18 is pressed to a vote my hon. Friends and I will have to vote against it, and that is unfortunate because there is much merit in new clause 23.
New clause 18 is nonsense and should be withdrawn. New clause 20 is unacceptable to this side of the House because of its enormous financial implications. We heard last week that Health Service charges at present provide 3·2 per cent. of the income of the NHS. That figure is derisory. The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras wants to have no charges at all. We are already close to that position. However, there is no such thing as a free presciption. Someone must pay. If new clause 20 is adopted, it will be the taxpayer who pays.
If this group of new clauses is pressed to a vote, I shall support the Government.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) has said that I made it clear in Committee that I was not satisfied with the current performance of all the FPCs. That is indeed the case. Many of those who serve on the FPCs would like them to play a more positive role and look forward to the Bill as giving them an opportunity to do so. The hon. Gentleman is a dissatisfied former member of an FPC. He told us that he had made such a nuisance of himself on the committee—no doubt on behalf of his constituents—that someone ensured that, when the time came, he was not reappointed. I know of several ex-members who resigned because they found the FPCs a frustrating way of trying to achieve things. We must raise the performance of the FPCs to the level that the best of them already achieve.
The House is divided about our proposals to give the FPCs a stronger, independent, free-standing status. Indeed, not all my hon. Friends agree with the Government on all counts. However, once we have taken on powers to appoint the FPCs directly, and have given them the independent status they desire, we must lift their performance generally and give them a more positive role to play.
When we discussed the role of the FPCs in Committee, the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, other members of the Committee and myself were in agreement about a remarkably wide range of objectives. Since then, a joint working group has considered how the FPCs should operate when the changes come into effect.
The report it produced contains many of the ideas that the hon. Gentleman commended to the Standing Committee and with which I agreed. In publishing it, I made it clear that once the Bill came into effect we must expect the FPCs to fulfil at least three important objectives. First, they must develop positive policies for the promotion of the family doctor, pharmaceutical dispensing and dental and optical services in the locality. Secondly, they must be properly accountable to Ministers, Parliament and — equally important — to the general public for those policies and the way in which they carry them out. Thirdly, they must collaborate closely with

district health authorities responsible for hospital and community services so that the planning and financing of the National Health Service may be considered as a whole.
Many of the ideas set out in that report have commended themselves to the people who have since seen it. In particular, they have advocated annual programmes, five-year strategies and so on of the kind that the hon. Gentleman—entirely unscripted and unprepared, I am sure—advocated in the Standing Committee.
I trust, however, that the hon. Gentleman will not press the new clauses because, for a variety of reasons, each has a combination of technical and other defects.
New clause 18 seeks to impose on FPCs a statutory duty to promote health education in their areas. My hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman), as a former chairman of a district health authority, anticipated what I intended to say when he pointed out that responsibility for health education at local level lay with district health authorities which already had many staff working in this sector—community physicians, doctors, nurses and, specifically, health education officers.
I shall not go into details today about what we hope to see achieved in this area. I am sure that all who have spoken in this debate, including myself, agree about the importance of health education. We are discussing how it should be carried out, not whether it should continue to be a high priority.
In so far as the FPCs have a role in this, it is a much lesser one than the DHAs. The report that we produced states:
collaboration arrangements should be used to co-ordinate family practitioners' health promotion efforts with those of the DHA.
I support that view, but I do not believe that we should place a specific statutory duty for one area on FPCs when district health authorities are in the lead on these matters.

Mr. Dobson: We are not proposing that the duty to promote health education should be taken away from the district health authorities but are seeking to impose an additional duty on family practitioner committees. This is especially important, as most people's contact with the Health Service is with their GP. Most people attend what might be described as Health Service premises only when they go to their GP's surgery. Good though the efforts of some district health authorities have been, therefore, we feel that the message is not getting through and that the best way into most people's homes and minds is through the family practitioner committees.

Mr. Clarke: We want collaboration between the two bodies — the district health authority and the family practitioner committee — but we do not want needless duplication and pointless competition between them. As my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham said, the direct employees of a family practitioner committee are mainly clerical staff. Otherwise, it is responsible for the services provided by a number of independent contractors —family doctors, pharmacists, and so on—who, I agree, have a key role to play in health promotion. The district health authority, however, actually employs health education officers and is thus bound to be the lead authority in the area.
We wish the two bodies to collaborate because family doctors and the health care teams of nurses and others who work with them are in the forefront of public contact with the Health Service and could do much more about health promotion. Nevertheless, we believe that the district


health authorities should be primarily concerned, drawing in the FPCs—or rather their contractors—so that they come closer together in planning their services and FPCs can collaborate with DHAs to ensure that proper notice is taken of the role that general practitioners have to play.
I shall take the new clauses in numerical order. As my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham said, new clause 20 goes far too far in reopening the question of charges of all kinds, and in seeking to extend the exemptions. It widens the present exemptions in several material ways. As I said in a debate on this subject only last week, the exemptions which apply at the moment were introduced by a Labour Government in, I think, 1968, and have been applied ever since.
11.15 pm
As the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Meadowcroft) said, the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras was very frank about his views, and no doubt he sees this as the first step towards spending that £350 million a year from Health Service revenue, or forgoing it. The hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) said that that would be the aim of the Labour party if it was ever returned to power. The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras got carried away by his own enthusiasm. He is so concerned about those with poor eyesight that he wants to give them all free prescriptions for colds, and everything else as well. As the hon. Member for Leeds, West and my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham pointed out, by going for those receiving less than the national average wage and exempting them from all charges, the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras is taking a substantial amount of revenue away from the Health Service. We all know that at present, that revenue could be put to better purpose within the NHS by the health authorities. Therefore, I do not agree with the new clause.
I turn to new clause 21 and to the subject of the Health Service commissioner. I have not even mentioned drafting problems so far, and I shall not rely on them. However, in Committee, I accused the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras of taking too narrow a view and of tabling an amendment that had a solely technical effect. As he says, he has now gone the whole hog. All commercial contracts for supply and, perhaps more importantly, all personnel matters, such as disputes with the staff, should go to the normal tribunals for determining such matters. We cannot give the ombudsman dual jurisdiction with the tribunals.
The hon. Gentleman is, I know, concerned about complaints procedures. We should all like to see them better understood by the public, and we should like the public to feel that they get a fair and objective deal when they complain to FPCs. However, the formal procedures for complaint before FPCs exclude the Health Service commissioner. The remedy lies in an appeal to the Secretary of State. But the informal procedures—as the hon. Member for Leeds, West said — are quite important, as much of the sense of grievance sometimes felt by patients or relatives vis-a-vis the family doctor can be sorted out if someone explains clearly what happened and why. There is no need for a vastly formalised complaints procedure to give someone a feeling of satisfaction.
We encourage FPCs to use those informal procedures. All our guidance says that more emphasis should be placed

on them by FPCs. We disapprove of those FPCs which treat complaints as either formal or nothing. When they follow the informal procedures, they are subject to the jurisdiction of the health ombudsman. It is quite right that he should be enabled to look at them. It is only when we turn to matters that are subject to other appeals and the possible decisions of tribunals, that the health ombudsman is excluded.
We had a longer debate in Committee than is possible now, but I tried to explain then that to open up the complaints procedure and to try to make it more satisfactory, we are producing a leaflet that will explain to patients how they can pursue their complaints with the FPCs. With the FPCs, as with all other services, getting the public to understand what they should do if they feel a sense of grievance would represent a substantial step forward, which would not, I am sure, be resented or feared by responsible professionals. We shall continue to do our best and to live up to what I said upstairs in Committee. I think that the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, however, has now gone too far the other way. The new clause gives the ombudsman far too much responsibility.
New clause 22 touches on deputising services. I certainly cannot conceal that I was far from satisfied by the way in which many FPCs were carrying out their duty to monitor deputising services last year. I am glad to say that we are now well advanced in getting out a new circular and guidance that will ensure that the present guidance is updated, and implemented by the FPCs. We shall insist that the new family practitioner committees apply it properly.
The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson), who is no longer in his place, seemed to wish to abolish all deputising services. That was slightly unreal, because the single-handed practitioner would be expected to be on call 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and would have a legitimate cause for grievance. No doctor can be expected to work excessive hours. No doctor should be over-tired when examining his patients in the morning because he has been overworked the night before.
Most practices are able to make some arrangements between themselves or with neighbouring practices by means of the co-operative agreements that were described. The majority of general practitioners in England do not use commercial deputising services, and the recent row was with the minority who do use them. I am not at the moment over-enamoured of all the commercial deputising services, because one of them ran a fairly scurrilous campaign, putting leaflets in surgeries and so on which tried to suggest that the Government were proposing to close down all the deputising services. That caused an understandable amount of fuss with large areas of the profession.
As our proposals were so misunderstood, we have restated what we propose on frequency of use. We have restated what has always been the case—that in ordinary circumstances no practitioner should use deputising services all the time for all his out-of-hours services. No approval should be given for deputising seven days a week, although there will always be the doctor who has broken his leg or is in some other health difficulty and needs special arrangements.
We have asked FPCs to monitor the use of deputising services, to impose reasonable restrictions on use, to bear in mind the need to get the maximum continuity of care possible in relation to the reasonable expectations of doctors, to judge each practice on its merits in the light of


the conditions of the locality and the problems of the practice, and to come to a reasonable balance between the interests of the doctors and the interests of their patients.
When we produce the final circular I trust that we shall succeed in satisfying everybody and in explaining to doctors and patients that we are not closing deputising services. On the other hand, we shall not allow general practice to become a nine-to-five job five days a week, which it never has been and never will be in Britain.

Dr. Alan Glyn: I think there was a genuine misunderstanding. When the announcement was first made, I do not think that the Department made clear exactly what it wanted. There was a general impression that deputising services were to be shut down completely. If they were, it would militate against the individual practitioner who must, as my right hon. and learned Friend said, use the deputising service far more than it is used by any group practice.

Mr. Clarke: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that there was a misunderstanding. He is a general practitioner and understands these matters. There was a failure of communication between myself and certain sections of the profession about what we had in mind in regard to monitoring. I accept my share of the blame for any failure of communication; the giver of the information and the receiver probably got their wires crossed. Other people were less than helpful in their contributions to the debate —not the Labour party on this occasion, but one of the commercial deputising services of which the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras so greatly disapproves.
I hope that the problem has now been sorted out to the reasonable satisfaction of everybody concerned, and that we shall have arrangements which will be supported in all parts of the House and by the profession.
The new clause talks about monitoring, which is an important duty of the FPCs and will be an important duty of the new sub-committees with the lay membership, to which I attach considerable importance in what we are now proposing. There should be lay representation in monitoring deputising services. The hon. Gentleman will not be surprised to know that I do not think that family practitioner committees should establish and run monitoring services. We do not envisage FPCs employing doctors. We are content with the present arrangements whereby family doctors are independent contractors. The Labour party may wish to take steps in the direction of salaried service. The present Government do not, and see no advantage in that direction either for the profession or for the public.
New clause 23 deals with the important subject of screening for female cancers, breast cancer and cervical cancer. Screening for cervical cancer is important, because it is a cancer which, if detected at an early enough stage, is curable and reversible, and the otherwise would-be victim need fear no more. It is sad to say that there are many unnecessary deaths from this cancer which could be detected by proper screening. Young, articulate middle-class women are eager to be screened, and tend to want to be screened more often than is necessary, in the opinion of the powerful independent committee that has advised us. On the other hand, many older working-class women who have had a number of children are unaware of this facility, and do not take advantage of the service. That is the root of the problem that we still have to tackle.
As to recall programmes, we closed down the national programme based at Southall not to save the jobs or money, but simply because it was not working. We had a well-intentioned recall system there, but not many people were responding to the recalls. Experience shows that the local ones work better.
I hope that I have said enough to show that I regard this as a serious matter, and that I will not be accused of retreating into technicalities when I say again that the responsibility is that of district health authorities, most of whom have screening programmes. The ones that do not ought to have them, and ought to get on with it. They have been told by us to get on with it.
Many use the family practitioner committees. We must not have people falling over each other, or competing. The district health authority in my opinion should continue to have the responsibility. I hope that, where local recall systems, are defective at present, effective ones will be set up as rapidly as possible.

Mr. Dobson: I hope that this is not a matter of party political dispute. I accept that the Minister takes this matter seriously. The family practitioner committee is die only part of the Health Service which has the name and address of every female patient in its area. The FPCs are the only people who can conceivably run a call and recall system with access to every woman. The district health authority is not in that position. District health authorities have had this responsibility, but, for one reason or another, including the fact that they do not have the names and addresses, have been unable to discharge it properly.

Mr. Clarke: Some district health authorities do it well. A considerable number use the family practitioner committees as an agent which makes everybody happy, including the hon. Gentleman and me. Other agencies have a campaign in which they recall women who have been screened after a suitable interval—which in our opinion is five years. People such as the Family Planning Association and the family planning clinics have names and addresses. Indeed, they do a great deal of first-time screening of women already. It should be made clear that the district health authorities are the most appropriate people to have the local recall arrangements.
We are not quite ready for national breast cancer screening. People often misunderstand the situation on breast cancer screening. There cannot be any civilised, sensible man who would argue about the desirability of screening for any potentially fatal disease if an effective screening method is available. There is still insufficient evidence to be certain that mass screening is effective in reducing deaths at a much earlier stage, in determining whether screening does any good and, if it does, deciding how best to do it. The Government are funding a large-scale programme to evaluate breast cancer screening. We are at an experimental stage throughout the country, and are spending £700,000 on the screening. A quarter of a million women are going through the screening programmes that we are financing.
Until we are able to evaluate the trials, we cannot make a decision on a future screening programme. That is disappointing to some people. That does not mean that we under value it, but, whatever the understandable impatience of people, one has to proceed on a scientific basis in medical matters. That means that one evaluates the method that one is using, and acts when one has some


scientific evidence to show that it is effective. Meanwhile, we recommend that all women should regularly examine their own breasts, and we give them guidance on how to do so. Useful leaflets on breast self-examination are widely available from the Health Education Council, and from the Women's National Cancer Control Campaign. Self-examination looks an encouraging prospect, not least because the woman herself is obviously in the best position quickly to detect changes in her breast than other methods that have been tried. However, we shall see what the evaluation produces.
11.30 pm
I do not believe that any of the new clauses touch on subjects on which there is any controversy or hostility between us, except possibly the lunatic desire of the Labour party to continue promising to get rid of health and prescription charges, when it knows perfectly well that when in government it will not be able to do so, just as it has been unable to do for the last quarter of a century or more.
However, I hope that we can meet the spirit of the new clauses by lifting the performance of the new FPCs, but meanwhile the new clauses are not a necessary addition to the Bill.

Mr. Dobson: By leave of the House, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 24

AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 36 OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT 1975

'The following amendments are hereby made to section 36 of the Social Security Act 1975—

(a) In subsection (2) the words "and a woman" to "normal household duties" are repealed.
(b) In subsection (7), the words "as incapable of performing normal household duties" are repealed'.'.—[Mr. Alfred Morris.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Alfred Morris: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Paul Dean): With this we may take the following amendments: No. 21, in page 12,line 3, leave out clause 6.
No. 22, in clause 6, page 12, line 6, leave out from 'person' to end of line 14 on page 14 and insert
'shall be entitled to a non-contributory invalidity pension for any day on which he is incapable of work, if he has been so incapable for a period of not less than 196 consecutive days ending immediately before that day.
(2) A person shall not be entitled to such a pension if he is under the age of 16 or receiving full-time education.
(3) A person shall not be entitled to such a pension unless he satisfies prescribed conditions as to residence or presence in Great Britain, provided that the prescribed period of residence or presence shall not be greater than 26 weeks.
(4) Subject to subsection (5) below, a person who has attained pensionable age shall not be entitled to a pension under this section unless he was so entitled (or is treated by regulations as having been so entitled) immediately before attaining that age.
(5) Regulations may make provision whereby a person who has attained retireing age (meaning 70 in the case of a man and 65 in the case of a woman) and was entitled to a pension under this section immediately before attaining that age continues to be so entitled notwithstanding that he is not incapable of work or

no longer satisfies the requirements of subsection (1) above as to the period for which a person must have been incapable of work.
(6) Regulations may make provision whereby, in the case of a person who has previously been entitled to a pension under this section, the requirements of subsection (1) above as to the period for which a person must have been incapable of work may be satisfied by reference to a period not ending immediately before the day there mentioned, or not consisting of consecutive days.
(7) Regulations may prescribe the circumstances in which a person is or is not to be treated for the purposes of this section as incapable of work, or is receiving full-time education.
(8) A pension under this section shall be payable at the weekly rate specified in relation thereto in Schedule 4, Part III, paragraph 2.
(9) Regulations may provide for disqualifying a person for receiving non-contributory invalidity pension for such period not exceeding six weeks as may be determined in accordance with sections 97 to 104 of this Act if—

(a) he has become incapable of work through his own misconduct; or
(b) he fails without good cause to attend for, or to submit himself to, such medical or other examination or treatment as may be required in accordance with the regulations, or to observe any prescribed rules of behaviour.'.

No. 108, in schedule 7, page 49, line 32, column 3, at end add —
'In section 36(2) the words "and a woman" to "normal household duties". In section 36(7) the words "as incapable of performing normal household duties".'.

Mr. Morris: The new clause and the amendments may seem to go for overkill in that there is some duplication in what we propose. At the same time, they go wider than the debate on the proposed severe disablement allowance. Indeed, one of them deals — the matter is not unimportant — with the residential qualification for payment of the non-contributory invalidity pension.
However, the Minister is aware of the problems of Opposition spokespersons in seeking to make sure, before anything can be known of the selection of amendments, that issues of importance to the people for whom they speak are dealt with as fully as possible.
In the interests of clarity, I must briefly give the House our view of clause 6. Like all the main organisations of disabled people, we are strongly against the proposed severe disablement allowance. By our new clause and the amendments, we seek to give effect to our pledge in the 1983 general election to end the household duties test and to pay the non-contributory invalidity pension to disabled married women on the single test of incapacity for work.
It is often said that Labour suffered at the general election last June because of the extent of its commitments to new and very much higher public expenditure, not least our pledges to introduce a new and comprehensive income scheme for disabled people, to make mobility allowance more widely available, and to end the household duties test. The electorate was repeatedly told by the Prime Minister that, if we were elected, public spending would go through the roof. Now it is said by her underlings at the DHSS, in an effort to divert attention from their punitive cuts in spending, that our commitments would not have been kept.
In fact, our commitments to disabled people were honestly made and, as can be seen in the record of the last Labour Government when spending on cash benefits for disabled people was increased by £1,100 million, they would have been fully honoured. We introduced four new cash benefits for disabled people and their families which, including the housewives non-contributory invalidity


pension, were widely welcomed at their inception, because they were about giving help for the first time ever to large numbers of disabled people.
They involved the Labour Government in much higher spending in this area than had been attempted by any previous Government. Moreover, we freely consulted with disabled people and their organisations about all our new benefits, and in particular about the scope and purpose of HNCIP. That cannot be said of the proposal for a severe disablement allowance in clause 6. Indeed, the Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation said that it was "astounded" to learn of the Government's proposal and added:
The rush straight into legislation indicates that the Government want as little light as possible to be shed on their sleight of hand".
That was a serious charge against a Government, who promised again and again that there would be full consultation with the disabled and their organisations about the outcome of the review of the househould duties test. Ministers now talk as if they make the case for the proposed severe disablement allowance simply by criticising the household duties test, but to criticise that test is not to justify the severe disablement allowance. There are some stern critics of the household duties test who would much prefer that test to continue than to see the proposed severe disablement allowance introduced. What they seek, as the Labour party did at the general election and as the Opposition seek now in the new clause and amendments, is to end the household duties test by making incapacity for work the only test for payment of the non-contributory invalidity pension.
In a message that I have had from the Disablement Income Group, whose knowledge and opinions are deeply respected on both sides of the House, it is put to me that rather than support clause 6
it would probably be better to retain the existing test.
The Spastics Society sees the Government's proposal as one that will
now discriminate between different groups of people on grounds of percentage loss of faculty, age at start of claim, 'deserving' and 'undeserving' disabilities and, certainly still, against married women.
The Disability Alliance, speaking for more than 80 organisations, of and for disabled people, has described it as
a mean and shabby measure".
It regards the new all-or-nothing 80 per cent. test of disability as
harsh and inhuman".
The legal and parliamentary committee of the Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation is wholly convinced that if introduced
the new benefit will prove a disaster".
They are just some of the angry comments made to me about clause 6, the opposition to which is both fierce and widespread. In fact, I know of no authentic spokesperson for the disabled who has welcomed what the Minister is proposing. If the Minister can quote just one representative of the disabled who supports the clause, no doubt he will say so in his reply.

Mr. Robert N. Wareing: Will my right hon. Friend suggest that the Minister should give a firm reply to the question that my right hon. Friend asked on 18 January about the publicity that would be given about those who should be claiming NCIP and HNCIP? On that occasion the Minister promised that he

would write individually to all those on supplementary benefit who had an underlying title to HNCIP and NCIP. I suggest that my right hon. Friend deserves an answer to the question "How many individuals has the Minister written to, what has been the response and how did the Minister decide how many people to write to?"

Mr. Morris: My hon. Friend raises an important point. I hope that the Minister will say when he comes to reply just what has taken place since 18 January further to the parliamentary reply that he gave me on that date.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State made great play on Second Reading with the preserved rights of women who, while now qualifying for HNCIP, will not qualify for the severe disablement allowance on the test proposed in the Bill. On the Government's own admission, there are 16,000 disabled married women who have qualified and are receiving HNCIP who do not qualify for the severe disablement allowance and who will receive it only as a preserved right. That means that before long there will be disabled married women in every locality whose circumstances are identical, some receiving the new benefit and others not. Yet this is a Government who promised a coherent system of cash benefits for the disabled. I shall quote the exact words of a reply from the Parliamentary Under-Secretary on 24 November 1983. He said:
Our long-term aim is to work towards a more coherent system of cash benefits for the disabled.—[Official Report, 24 November 1983; Vol. 49, c. 286.]
The proposal in clause 6, the fine print of which very few people as yet understand, runs wholly counter to that commitment.
It is easy now to forget that 10 years ago many people believed that a household duties test was fairer to married women who had never worked than was the straight test of incapacity for work. As the Under-Secretary will recall, there was no challenge in the House to the original regulations for HNCIP—they were never even debated. To his credit the hon. Gentleman was then, as he had been for years past, an active member of the all-party disablement group in the House, with whom—as he knows—I consulted closely about the introduction of HNCIP.
The household duties test was an incapacity test for an incapacity benefit. As we shall seek to show on a later amendment, a percentage disability test is wholly irrelevant to an incapacity benefit. If people are incapable of earning an income, they deserve invalidity benefit. 'To categorise them according to disability is no more logical than to deprive people of benefit because of the colour of their hair.
Ministers have been chucking figures at right hon. and hon. Members in Committee and in parliamentary replies that beg more questions than they answer. On their own admission, their figures are largely guesswork—many of them do not appear to be even good guesswork. At present 50,000 people receive HNCIP and 240,000 married women are incapable of work and would gain immediate benefit from the abolition of the household duties test. The gross cost of abolishing the household duties test is thus in the region of £255 million, although Ministers somehow make it £275 million.
In one of his wilder guesstimates on 15 February, the Minister of State said that savings on supplementary benefit would be only £15 million, on housing benefit £3 million and that on family income supplement they would


be negligible. In a subsequent letter to me, the Minister stated that his estimates were based on the assumption that a similar proportion of the married couples affected would be receiving each of the three benefits as is the case for married couples of working age population. Only 6 per cent. of married couples of working age are on supplementary benefit and 8 per cent. on standard housing benefit. Those are the figures he applies to the 240,000 families that include a married woman who is incapable of work. If the Minister had bothered to look at a reply his ministerial colleague gave me two days earlier, he would have seen that 10 per cent. of women now receiving HNCIP are in households in receipt of supplementary benefit. He was, therefore, 4 per cent. out in one assumption alone.
As we all know, most families now look to two incomes for as long as possible and many, unfortunately, are dependent on only the wife's income. All those families should, of course, be excluded from comparison when considering the supplementary benefit entitlement of a family where, by definition, the wife is incapable of work. The husband of a disabled woman is also likely to have such restrictions on his income as inability to work overtime because of his family commitments. The Minister should go back to his statisticians and ask them to try again.
There has been confusion also about the Government's estimates for losers and gainers. The SDA quite clearly discriminates against some disabled people who are not married women. Yet the Government have absolutely no information about those who, from November this year, they propose to deprive of entitlement to benefit. We shall be returning to this on a later amendment. Meanwhile, I hope that it will be agreed on both sides of the House that the current lack of information on so sensitive an issue is disgraceful.
11.45 pm
As I said, there are 50,000 current beneficiaries of HNCIP, all of whom will have a preserved right to the severe disablement allowance. Of that total, 16,000 would not be able to pass the 80 per cent. disability test; but we are informed that a further 20,000 to 21,000—the figure changes from time to time—will pass the 80 per cent. test. This accounts for what we are told will be an initial increase in expenditure of about £20 million. We are told, further, that in each subsequent year, 4,500 married women will qualify for SDA, whereas only 4,000 would have qualified for HNCIP.
It is this assumed increase of 500 beneficiaries a year which leads the Government to claim that SDA is a marginal improvement. What the Government have failed to make clear, among other gaps in our information, is the way in which it has been arbitrarily decided to shift benefit from one group of people to another. From the figures quoted, I calculate that out of every 400 married women incapable of work, 300 would pass neither test, that only 47 would pass both tests, that 22 would pass the household duties test but fail the 80 per cent. test and that 31 would pass the 80 per cent. test but not the household duties test.
The assumed increase of 500 successful applicants a year conceals, therefore, 1,280 married women who will be deprived each year of a cash benefit to which they

would have been entitled under the present law. Moreover, they are people who are incapable both of work and of looking after their homes and families.
Ministers' statistics about clause 6 of the Bill have been aptly described as round figures from square holes. To end my review of them on a lighter note, it appears that the Government expect wedding bells to be ringing all over the country following the introduction of the severe disablement allowance. Comparing figures in two replies, it appears that each year some 500 married women under the age of 20 will receive SDA, whereas none is currently receiving HNCIP. This is said to reflect the fact, according to the Minister, that
for the married woman incapacitated before age 20 the conditions for SDA will be easier to satisfy than those for NCIP".
Strictly on the figures that the Minister has given, all the extra 500 successful claimants will be under 20, which is palpably absurd and makes his basic assumption seem ludicrous.
To sum up, the Government have created a test that is less justifiable than the one that it is to replace. It will, as the Spastics Society says, discriminate against married women. At the same time, we are told nothing about the people who will be deprived of entitlement to benefit.
Oscar Wilde, returning from the first night of one of his plays, said that the play was a great success but that the audience was a failure. That seems to be the Government's attitude to clause 6; they see their proposal as a great success and its legion of critics, including all the major organisations of and for disabled people, as failures. I hope that the House will reject that view by supporting our new clause and amendments.

Mr. Wareing: There are a number of unanswered questions from the Committee stage. There was a strong feeling among the protectors of the mentally handicapped, for example, in the Spastics Society, that those people who are cerebrally palsied would fail to receive real benefit from the Bill. At the time the Minister attempted to reassure hon. Members by saying that cerebral palsy was a congenital disease and that, therefore, anyone so afflicted would receive benefit well before the age of 20.
In a recent document the Spastics Society has pointed out that a cerebrally palsied person is not necessarily incapable of work, that some such people have been employed before the age of 20 and that it is after that, when they are in the older age groups, that unemployment hits many of them and the real problem arises. The Minister must address himself to that problem.

Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman has just said that it is at a later age that unemployment hits. If the person is unemployed, none of this applies. It is an incapacity for work benefit and not unemployment benefit. Does he mean that they are capable of work at the earlier age and then become incapable of work?

Mr. Wareing: Indeed; that is the point I was attempting to make. There was an implicit assumption by the Minister in Committee that cerebrally palsied people are ipso facto incapable of work. I am arguing that that is not always the case and that some of them have been employed and have become unemployed later as a result of their incapacity.
People with no record or an inadequate record of contributions to qualify for invalidity pension are overwhelmingly women. Married women will suffer more


than any other group on the introduction of the severe disablement allowance. I am not sure that the SDA is not in conflict with a recent European directive in relation to sex discrimination.
I am also dissatisfied with the 80 per cent. disablement condition. In Committee the Under-Secretary of State suggested that there would be a rounding-up and that to qualify for SDA the percentage of 76 would be rounded up to 80. I have not yet had a satisfactory answer to the point I made in Committee about people in receipt of benefit under the industrial injuries legislation. In the period October 1980 to September 1981, of 6,020 persons who were in receipt of benefit under the industrial injuries provisions, only 210 were designated as 80 per cent., 90 per cent. or 100 per cent. disabled. In other words, only 3 per cent. of the people who claimed that benefit would have qualified for benefit had there been a cut-off point of 80 per cent.
I should like to be assured that more than 3 per cent. of disabled people are likely to benefit from the introduction of this arbitrary cut-off point.
We are all pleased that Ministers propose to abolish the household duties test. I am sure that the Parliamentary Under-Secretary will repeat the arguments used in Committee, that there is a financial reason for the severe disablement allowance test. He admitted that it is an attempt to limit the cost of the benefit. He said that that also applied to the household duties test, but he criticised members of the last Labour Government for failing to abolish the household duties test.
I am not one to make excuses for everything that the last Labour Government did. I believe that the household duties test involves a high degree of sex discrimination. The Minister will argue that the financial constraints on the Labour Government were exactly the same as those on the present Conservative Government, but I believe that there is a great difference between 1975 and today.
In 1975 wide consultation took place. All the organisations concerned had the opportunity to express their views on the proposed legislation. Opposition Members—for example, the hon. Member for Wallasey (Mrs. Chalker)—were able to express their views.
The culmination of a campaign which began in 1967 when the Disablement Income Group was founded by Megan de Boisson was when the Government introduced a disablement income, especially for housewives, or married women.
In Committee on 23 February 1984, the Minister said that nobody opposed the household duties test because at least it was a move from housewives not receiving the allowance. In 1975 that was a progressive move in the right direction. It was supported by every organisation connected with disabled people. Not even the then Opposition were prepared to oppose it. I challenge the Minister to name one organisation that favours the current proposal.
The Government have promised consultation on at least two occasions. On 13 July 1982 the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi), then a Minister, promised a review of the household duties test and said that the Government would organise consultations. A year earlier, the hon. Member for Wallasey said that any proposals would be put to a vote in the House if the House so desired. This is yet another example of the Government breaking their promise to the disabled. Indeed, disabled people had great hopes of the present Under-Secretary of

State because he was regarded, in Opposition, as a liberal and, dare I say it, wet member of the Conservative party. Had he had his way, even Jane Torvill and Christopher Dean would have qualified for mobility allowances, but he seems to have changed his colours, since he owes his position to the most Scrooge-like Prime Minister that the country has had the misfortune to be governed by since the end of the second world war.
12 midnight
The reason for the SDA is not that it should help the disabled but that it should assist the Chancellor of the Exchequer in pursuing his stringent monetarist policies. The third difference between 1975 and now is that in 1975 the Labour Government were increasing cash benefits from £474 million when they took office in 1974 to £1,584 million when they left office in 1979. During that period expenditure on services to the disabled trebled. To use the words of the Prime Minister at Question Time last week, "Match that!"
We should also remember the oil price crisis of 1975. It could be said—I would not say legitimately, but with stronger force than we have heard today — that the Labour Government had to watch expenditure carefully because of that crisis and the inflation which hit all the developed industrial nations. But it is different today because of the North sea oil bonanza. That was before we had a Tory Government, whose first act was to abandon exchange controls and ensure that £10 billion of Britain's wealth, produced by British people, poured out into cheap labour markets all over the world. It was before we were committed to spending £17 billion a year to keep 3·5 million of our fellow citizens unemployed.
There is no reason why, at a time when £57 million can be spent on a few households in the Falkland Islands, £255 million — or, if the Government's figures are right, which they are usually not, £275 rnillion—could not be found to meet the cost of abandoning the household duties test. The time is right. The Government can afford it, and it would be a great benefit to thousands of disabled people. The disabled have nothing for which to thank the Government, because the Minister persists in pursuing a policy of placating the Prime Minister rather than acting as he should and defending the rights of the disabled. I have no great hope of this happening, but I trust that the Minister will reconsider clause 6 and see his way clear to accepting at least some of the Opposition amendments.

Mr. Kirkwood: It is our view that the Government have missed another marvellous opportunity to move towards a comprehensive benefit system for disabled people. The changes the Government have introduced will result in an even more complicated benefit system. It is not a comprehensive scheme. That can be seen clearly from the representations made by organisations such as the Spastics Society which argues clearly, and it has convinced me, that the new system will not take proper account of people with diseases such as cerebral palsy. The use of the industrial injury scale and the loss of faculty test will discriminate against them. The society convinced me that by using the test which was set up for industrial injuries, and which has served reasonably well in the past, it is possible to have a 100 per cent. disability and yet still be capable of work while with some diseases it is possible to have a 60 per cent. incapacity and be completely incapable of work.
Another criticism that I would make is about the level of the age cut-off—the incapacity commencing before the age of 20. I should like the Government to consider extending the age limit to 25. If I remember correctly, in Committee the Minister said that that would cost £10 million. That is a large sum of money but it is a small price to pay when one realises that the YTS limits have been extended to the age of 21 and can last for 18 months. It would be a worthwhile change.
The 80 per cent. test is a harsh way to implement the system. It is clear from the way that the Government have introduced it that it is a simple way of limiting the cost. I do not deride that justification, but the 80 per cent. level is high and, as we heard earlier, will leave out some of the people who at present are within the scope of the benefit.
The elements of discrimination contained in the proposals we are discussing worry me most. EEC directive 7/79 article 4·1 on equal treatment makes it clear that the principles set out by the European Commission about
the scope of the schemes and the conditions of access
are breached by the proposals.
I understand the difficulties that the usual channels have when time-tabling these debates, but it is difficult when subjects such as this come on in the middle of the night. I feel constrained by time when discussing these important and urgent proposals. The proposals will be too complicated to understand and I hope the Government will consider seriously the comments that have been made by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) and others. I hope that the Minister will study the operation of the scheme and be prepared to return and change it if we can show him that some of the fears we raised in Committee and this evening are proven.

Mr. Wigley: Although the Under-Secretary has been asked numerous questions in Committee about the way in which parts of this section of the Bill will work, more questions remain than have been answered. The scheme will be difficult to operate because of the cut offs. There is a problem wherever the line is drawn. Someone with a 79 per cent. incapacity falls below the line and someone with 81 per cent. is above it.
I have seen many examples in industry of people suffering from pneumoconiosis. There is great difficulty in defining the percentage of disability. Time after time one hears someone complain that he feels hard done by because John Jones over there is defined as 100 per cent. disabled, but is walking around and doing a job, while that person is only 20 per cent. disabled, yet is incapable of doing a job. Many people are I know perhaps only 20 per cent. incapacitated according to the industrial definition, but are incapable of holding down a job by the nature of their incapacity. Others are 100 per cent. disabled, but can do jobs.
Only this week a well-known policeman in my town of Caernarfon, Arthur Rowlands — blinded by shotgun wounds 20 or 30 years ago—retired. Although he lost his sight in that accident, he held down his job on the switchboard in the local police station very well.
Such cases make it very difficult to implement the measure. There will be a feeling that people are being cut out on an arbitrary basis. There are also difficulties in clause 6(5), which refers to loss of physical and mental faculties. I am glad that mental disability is included, but

there will be difficulties in making the 80 per cent. assessment. With regard to the age cut-off at the lower end, a contemporary of mine who suffered a chemical change in the brain when he was about 20 would have been cut out by these rules, when he should have been included in the scope of the Bill.
I am not deriding the half step that has been taken, although I believe that the situation of women is still unsatisfactory. Implicit discrimination is still there. The only way to overcome that is by a comprehensive scheme. I realise what the cost would be and that it is an ambitious thing to do, but sometime we must grasp the nettle. If we do not, when we have the benefit from North sea oil and so on, when will we ever be able to do so? The Government must seriously consider that, simplify the structure and get universal benefit for disabled people, with the implicit cost of that, which should be grasped. It should be a step forward towards a fairer society for the handicapped.

Mr. Newton: I hope that the House will understand if I do not attempt to take up the comments that have been made to the extent of re-running a whole Second Reading speech in defence of the benefit. However, I shall try to pick up specific points as briefly and reasonably as possible.
No one listening to the debate in the past half hour would believe that the House is discussing a proposal to spend an additional £20 million to provide benefit for an additional 20,000 people in the short term, mainly married women excluded by the household duties test —although, as I have made clear to the House on several occasions, that number will fall to a lower net figure over quite a long period ahead.
I note what was said about consultation. I can only repeat what I said in Committee, that once we received the report of the official study of the household duties test, if we had delayed for a lengthy, formal, conventional consultation process, we would not have been able to bring the proposal before the House for at least a year, possibly longer, for an additional £20 million to an additional 20,000 people. It might have been longer because I cannot guarantee that there will be a social security Bill next year.
The process of discussion of the Bill in Committee and the representations made by outside organisations have been helpful to us. I naturally regret that it was not possible to have amore extended process, but I would still prefer to get my £20 million, Scrooge-like though I am accused of being, to the proposed beneficiaries as soon as possible.
I shall look carefully at what the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Moms) said about statistics. However, as I have made clear throughout the discussion, we accept that the statistical basis of the proposals is imperfect, as is the basis of almost all disability statistics. That is one reason why I was pleased that, in announcing a variety of social security reviews a few weeks ago, the Secretary of State also announced that we have decided to go ahead with the first full-scale survey of disabled people in this country for well over 15 years. It will be the first full-scale survey since the Amelia Harris survey, which itself was not comprehensive. For instance, it did not cover those in residential institutions. The survey will improve our information base.
12.15 am
Of course we accept that, in an uncertain world and on a difficult statistical base, there is the possibility of error.


We shall carefully monitor the early stages of the benefit, with a view to reconsidering our position—I can make no grander promise than that—if we have made any significant mistakes.
I do not want to say too much about the household duties test. I should, however, like to apologise to the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe for having said something ungenerous about him in this context during Question Time some six or eight weeks ago. I accept that he acted in good faith and on extensive consultation. However, if the household duties test was the result of extensive consultation, the general view of it suggests that it is not the world's greatest advertisement for consultation. Every single criticism of severe disablement allowance that has been made tonight could be made even more severely of the existing benefit and the position within it of the household duties test.
I understand the frustration arising from the fact that the Government have not been able to produce a proposal to spend nearly £300 million simply to abolish the household duties test. People will have their own views about whether we should or should not have done so. In our judgment, we could not do so at the present time. Once it has been accepted that we did not feel able to find that amount of money for that purpose at this time, Opposition Members are underestimating the extent to which what we have suggested represents a potential improvement in the benefit system and a step in the direction in which we all want to move.
An element of discrimination—if one wishes to use that word — remains, but we are replacing naked discrimination against married women on the grounds of their sex and marital status by a much more rational allocation of scarce resources first to those who are congenitally handicapped or become disabled very early in life and never have an opportunity to build up a contribution record and qualify for contributory benefits, and distribution of the remaining resources on the grounds of the severity of the disability rather than according to whether the potential beneficiary happens to be a married woman. That is a step forward for rationality. At this moment, 750 women lose non-contributory invalidity pension every year simply by getting married. No one could say that that is a sensible and rational state of affairs.
I take up a point made by the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) and some of the comments of the right hon. Gentleman and others. In the longer run, it is crystal clear to me that any progress towards a comprehensive disability benefit system—whether in the form of a general disablement income, a disablement costs allowance or some combination of the two—will depend on the development of some viable system of measuring percentage degrees of disability.
I do not say that in no conceivable world could there be a better basis on which to start than our experience in industrial injuries and war pensions. I say only that no one has yet had any better ideas. Even Peter Large of the Disablement Income Group, in a document that I quoted in Committee, appeared to accept that, so far as he can judge at present, the industrial injuries approach would be a necessary starting point.
I remind the House that the Social Security Advisory Committee in its letter to me dated 16 February said of our proposals:
We are aware that there has been long experience of the use of this test for industrial injuries and war pensions purposes, and if"—
I acknowledge the "if'—
it can successfully be applied to the kind of civilian disablement most likely to be encountered in NCIP/HNCIP, we would regard SDA and the loss of faculty test as a potentially important building block in the development of a comprehensive benefit system.
That is a reasonable view and, based on that and what has been said by other organisations, it is reasonable for me to claim that, far from being a retrograde step, this is an important partial step in our general longer-term policy of seeking to bring greater coherence to this area, which I do not believe is possible without effective percentage measurement.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) referred to views that he had received from the Spastics Society. My only comment is that anyone incapable of work because of cerebral palsy or indeed any other affliction before the age of 20 is not involved in the 80 per cent. test. Such a person simply has to be incapable of work to receive SDA. The hon. Gentleman asked about people who were not incapable of work by 20 but who actually worked then and became incapable of work later. If they were working, they would have been paying contributions and would normally be expected to qualify for contributory invalidity pension. This whole argument would thus pass them by, as it concerns non-contributory invalidity pension.
That might not be true in every case. There might be married women who had decided not to make contributions and deliberately opted out of the contributory benefit system. That is a decision that we have to accept. If there is any covert discrimination, as the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) suggested, it may be the fact that we still allow married women to opt out of paying full national insurance contributions. The Labour Government took the decision to maintain that right for those who already had it and in certain circumstances in the future. Having said that, however, I shall go no further down that track.
On the question that the hon. Member for West Derby raised about information, in the next few months local officers will be writing to some 75,000 people in receipt of supplementary benefit inviting them to claim noncontributory invalidity pension. The exercise has already started but so far I have no details of the response. The 75,000 involved are those drawing supplementary benefit on the basis of incapacity for work.
The hon. Member for Caernarfon will allow me to make a small factual correction. In the industrial injuries type of assessment, anything above 75 per cent. would be rounded up to 80 per cent., so his argument about the 79 per cent. was technically incorrect. The hon. Gentleman acknowledged that there were considerable borderline problems. There are difficulties in deciding whether a person is incapable of work, let alone the degree of disability involved.
If we allow ourselves to be defeated by those problems rather than trying to meet them, with regard to both physical and mental incapacity, we may as well give up altogether. We certainly should not have mobility allowance if anyone was bothered about borderline problems. The same applies to various other benefits. I am not a defeatist. I believe that we can develop the industrial injuries type of approach with the experience that we


already have, and bringing in new experience to make this a useful step forward—not so big a step as I should like in an ideal world, but a worthwhile step, bringing £20 million more to 20,000 more people in the near future.

Mrs. Beckett: I shall try not to detain the House long. The Minister seemed a little hurt that people did not recognise his generosity—[Interruption.]I am sorry if the Minister is offended, but that is how it appeared to us. People are not applauding too loudly because, if the figures given by my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) were correct, the Minister will not be giving away £20 million. Moreover, he is taking money away from those who currently have child dependency additions to long-term benefit. The Government are not, therefore, handing out any new money, but are taking it from those who are now dependent on invalidity benefits of one sort or another, and handing it to another group. They cannot expect much applause for that.
I suppose that the Minister appreciates the criticisms that have been made, but he has not met them. The basis of the criticisms is that the scheme is unjust and unworkable. It is unjust, because it has an arbitrary qualifying age. Later, there will be two tests. Clearly many people will fail them, and if they do so, they will lose all benefit, although I recognise that there is a borderline on either side of the 80 per cent. Almost all those with experience consider the scheme unworkable. I know that the Minister spoke optimistically of building on the industrial injuries experience. He referred, as others have to those with cerebral palsy. I am not sure, however, that he was correct in his comments. For example, my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) pointed out that the Spastics Society had drawn attention to the fact that many of those with cerebral palsy become incapable of work later in life. The Minister said that if they had ever worked, they would have made contributions. But they may become incapable of work at a point at which their contributions no longer entitled them to benefits because of the period of time involved.
As the society has pointed out, those with that disability seem to suffer. It even goes so far as to say that it is very rare to find two sufferers with the same combination of handicap. So it is hard to see how on earth one is to build up a body of evidence in percentage terms. The principal of one of the further education colleges that has students with cerebral palsy has pointed out that about 90 per cent. of his students will not get jobs, and that fewer than 50 per cent. of them will qualify for SDA, because they will study beyond the age of 20, and will fail the other tests imposed.
The Minister referred in passing to mental health, but he did not really deal with it. Like other hon. Members, I have had some most disturbing correspondence from MIND. It makes several very alarming points. First, it points out that the age test at 20, the whole approach to the allowance, and even its name, constitute a significant disincentive to the mentally handicapped when it comes to making any attempt to take up work. Secondly, MIND points out that symptoms are often recurrent or varying and circumstances may change. Trying to meet the two tests under such circumstances would be a nightmare for anyone.
Rather than being discouraged by such things, some schizophrenics seem to suffer delusions of grandeur, by which I mean that they imagine themselves to be capable of doing all sorts of things, which, in reality they cannot do. Frequently, schizophrenics may decide that they are capable of work and may give up all their benfit rights. They may go out and try to find jobs which those concerned know that they will soon leave. Again, the thought of such people going to and fro is quite worrying.
Perhaps most of all, MIND is concerned about the loss of the therapeutic earnings concession. Unless it escaped me, there has been no reference to that in the debate. MIND points out that 96 per cent. of those who incur severe mental illness find that illness occurring after the age of 20. It stresses the enormous difficulties of assessing mental handicap in the way set out in the Bill and draws attention to other potential ways of assessing it under the Mental Health Acts. Will the Minister tell us whether the Government have considered or are prepared to consider some movement in that area? MIND says that 81,500 of the mentally ill are receiving non-contributory invalidity pension and is most concerned at what will happen to many of those people under the Bill's proposals.
12.30 am
On several occasions there has been reference in debates in Committee and outside to the fact that those who now enjoy NCIP will be able to carry it over and will continue to be entitled to the allowance in the future. But we should be aware as hon. Members and as a House, that it is not necessarily an entitlement in perpetuity; that the people who will carry over the entitlement when the Bill becomes law will, as in every other circumstance where benefit is involved, be subject to review, and that it may well be the case that some of those who are reviewed and get NCIP now will, when we come to review them in terms of SDA in the future, begin to lose benefit. That is perhaps another of the reasons why the organisations of the disabled are not as grateful to the Minister as he seems to think they should be.
We should now be making progress towards a more comparable side-by-side contributory and noncontributory benefit, and towards a system that can be built on in the future. Unfortunately, along with almost all the organisations of the disabled, we do not see the proposals as such a system, therefore we shall be voting for the new clause and against the proposals.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 32, Noes 129.

Division No. 274]
[12.28 am


AYES


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Marek, Dr John


Bermingham, Gerald
Meacher, Michael


Bruce, Malcolm
Meadowcroft, Michael


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)
Nellist, David


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)
Penhaligon, David


Corbyn, Jeremy
Pike, Peter


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)
Skinner, Dennis


Dobson, Frank
Steel, Rt Hon David


Dubs, Alfred
Wallace, James


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Wareing, Robert


Fisher, Mark
Wigley, Dafydd


Freud, Clement
Williams, Rt Hon A.


Harman, Ms Harriet
Winnick, David


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)



Kennedy, Charles
Tellers for the Ayes:


Kirkwood, Archibald
Mr. Norman Hogg and


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Mr. Frank Haynes.






NOES


Alexander, Richard
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Mayhew, Sir Patrick


Amess, David
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Ancram, Michael
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Ashby, David
Mills, lain (Meriden)


Aspinwall, Jack
Mitchell, David (NW Hants)


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Moynihan, Hon C.


Batiste, Spencer
Murphy, Christopher


Bellingham, Henry
Newton, Tony


Bendell, Vivian
Nicholls, Patrick


Benyon, William
Norris, Steven


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Onslow, Cranley


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Osborn, Sir John 


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Ottaway, Richard


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


Bright, Graham
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Brinton, Tim
Powell, William (Corby)


Brooke, Hon Peter
Powley, John


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Proctor, K. Harvey


Burt, Alistair
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Butterfill, John
Robinson, Mark (N'port W)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Rowe, Andrew


Chapman, Sydney
Sackville, Hon Thomas


Chope, Christopher
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Colvin, Michael
Sims, Roger


Conway, Derek
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Coombs, Simon
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Cope, John
Speed, Keith


Couchman, James
Speller, Tony


Cranborne, Viscount
Spencer, Derek


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Squire, Robin


Dorrell, Stephen
Stanbrook, Ivor


Dover, Den
Stern, Michael


Dunn, Robert
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Evennett, David
Stevens, Martin (Fulham)


Fallon, Michael
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Forth, Eric
Stradling Thomas, J.


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Gale, Roger
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Thorne, Neil (llford S)


Goodlad, Alastair
Thurnham, Peter


Grant, Sir Anthony
Tracey, Richard


Gummer, John Selwyn
Twinn, Dr Ian


Hayhoe, Barney
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Hickmet, Richard
Viggers, Peter


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Waddington,Dacid


Holt, Richard
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)
Walden, George


Jackson, Robert
Waller, Gary


Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Lester, Jim
Wheeler, John


Lilley, Peter
Whitfield, John


Lloyd, Ian (Havant)
Wilkinson, John


Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Lord, Michael
Winterton, Nicholas


Lyell, Nicholas
Wolfson, Mark


Macfarlane, Neil
Wood, Timothy


MacGregor, John
Woodcock, Michael


Maclean, David John
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Major, John



Malins, Humfrey
Tellers for the Noes:


Mates,Micheal
Mr. Micheal Neubert and


Mather, Carol
Mr.Archie Hamilton.


Maude, Hon Francis

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 25

PRESERVATION OF DOCUMENTS RELATING TO CERTAIN DETERMINATIONS

(1) It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to ensure that such documents relating to any relevant determination made under section 2 of the Supplementary Benefits Act 1976 as are necessary to enable an adjudication officer to review the determination are preserved until either

(a) the determination has been reviewed or
(b) the Secretary of State is satisfied that no such review is necessary for the purpose of correcting an underpayment of benefit.


(2) For the purposes of this section a "relevant determination" means a determination, made before 1st August 1983 and not reviewed on or after that date, as to entitlement to or the amount of supplementary benefit in a case to which regulation 8 of the Supplementary Benefit (Requirements) Regulations 1980 applied at the date of the determination.

—[Mrs. Beckett.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mrs. Beckett: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
This is a simple new clause, as the Minister is well aware, which refers to a simple matter. Some time ago it was realised that a substantial number of people had deductions made from their supplementary benefit on the grounds that they might have made themselves voluntarily unemployed. However, as was the rule and the norm, when these cases went to the Department of Employment to be checked, decisions were frequently made reversing that original assumption. Therefore, the people involved were entitled to back payment of benefit.
However, through a failure to follow the correct regulations in the DHSS, in about half of those cases no check was ever made with the Department of Employment, no one in the DHSS was aware that the decisions had been reversed. and no back payment of benefit was made.
The Government have checked the files of those with current supplementary benefit claims, and I understand that about 8,000 people have received payments totalling about £200,000. However, the new clause is concerned with those who are not currently receiving supplementary benefit but who are still entitled to the benefit of which they were unjustly deprived.
It is believed that about 20,000 people come into this category. The Department published one advertisement and I understand that about 180 people replied. It has advertised again, and perhaps the Minister will inform us of the response to that second series of advertisements.
In the normal course of events, about 3 million DHSS files, including many of the files to which I have just referred, will begin to be destroyed on 15 June. The Department has delayed the destruction of some of the files to give those concerned the opportunity to make a claim but there has not been much time and, with respect to the Department, there has not been all that much publicity to encourage people to do so. We should like a further opportunity to be given to those who are entitled to the back benefit to claim it. It is for that reason that the new clause asks the Government not to resume destruction of the files on 15 June.

Dr. Boyson: The Department's inspectorate who found this discrepancy discovered that it had existed under previous Governments. Credit should be given to this Government for bringing the discrepancy to light. If it had not been found, it is likely that it would have continued without anyone knowing about it. When it was discovered that deductions had been made unfairly, the Department took action. No criticism can be made of the Government on the speed with which they acted.
The hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) has asked me to state how many individuals are concerned. About 9,600 current claims were found to be wrong and payments of an average of £25 per person have been paid


back to those who have made a claim. We decided immediately that the back papers should be kept for a longer period than normal so that any issue that was raised could be considered in the light of the papers. We have twice advertised widely in the national press, on the BBC and on local radio. We sent out posters to the TUC, the CBI, unemployment benefit offices and post offices. We sent out forms for the use of those who were entitled to make a claim. We did everything that we could to make it known to those who thought that they had a claim to back payments that they should approach the Department.
As a result of the autumn advertising, 130 claimants were paid an average of £25 each. We advertised again about a month ago and 133 claims were submitted as a result. We advertised throughout the press and we issued posters. We are keeping the back papers in readiness.
The new clause is asking us to keep the back papers for even longer. Anyone who has seen the mass of documents that are kept in social security offices will understand the amount of space that they occupy and the number of staff who are required to look after them. If we went through the papers individually, it would cost £3·6 million and would take many of the staff away from serving the present clientele. Every Government and every Department must have priorities. The Government decide how much money will be allocated to each Department, and within this Department we have to decide where the money allocated for social security should be spent. The £3·6 million will not come from outer space. If we spent that sum in going through the papers individually, it would have to be drawn from the allocation for another benefit or from another project.
We found that about 9,600 individuals had been unfairly treated and the money has been paid back to those who have made a claim. There have been two large advertising campaigns on the radio and in the press and we have sent posters to all the offices concerned. The Government have done all that they reasonably can to draw attention to the discrepancy, and I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to oppose the new clause.

Mr. Frank Field: How many individuals are eligible for back payment who are within the "dead" files? Is 20,000 a reliable figure?

Dr. Boyson: I have not seen a figure. I shall write to the hon. Gentleman within a week and supply him with an estimate.

Mrs. Beckett: If the Minister is adamant on not responding to the new clause, we shall have to find another way of raising the matter. The Prime Minister has threatened us—I think that that is the right expression—with another term of office. God forbid—I am sure that he will—that that should happen. If she should be fortunate enough to secure a third term, I wonder whether Ministers will cease to blame everything that happens on the previous Labour Government.

Question put and negatived.

New Clause 28

SOCIAL SECURITY UPRATINGS

'In subsection (1) of section 125 (Duty to increase rate of certain benefits) of the Social Security Act 1975, after the final "of', there shall be inserted the words "earnings or".'.—[Mr. Kirkwood.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Kirkwood: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I feel in need of some protection.
I wish briefly to rehearse some of the arguments that show the plight in which the Government's actions have put pensioners. I can anticipate the Minister's reply—I have heard it before. It is a good turn, but it does not convince me. Indeed, the more I hear it, the more I doubt whether the Government live in the real world.
The pensioners will not be convinced by the way that the Minister juggles the figures, talks about real increases and so on. What the pensioners have to live on has, especially during the past five years, bought them less and less and caused them more and more hardship. If we compare their incomes with the increases in electricity and food bills, rent and rates, the Minister's talk of how the Government have done better than ever before is seen as nonsense.
I ask the Minister to spare us criticism of the Labour party. We have heard that before also. It would facilitate discussion of the Bill if he cut out all that rubbish and just dealt with the point of the amendment, which is very simple. The amendment imposes upon the Secretary of State, when he increases the rate of certain benefits, a duty to link it to earnings or prices, whichever is the greater. That would have a significant effect on the standard of living enjoyed by those living on pensions.
We are constantly being told by the Prime Minister and the Treasury Bench that the Government's policy is succeeding. If that is true, the rate of inflation is falling, the retail price index is falling and, therefore, the rate of increase for pensions will fall. We are also constantly told that earnings will increase as the great expansion hits us and takes us unawares. Increases in earnings may run at 6, 7, 8, 9 or 10 per cent. in future years, so clearly pensioners will receive a smaller proportion of the gross domestic product and will continue progressively to be at a disadvantage as the years pass.
The Minister is a fair man. I am sure that he cannot possibly miss the logic of the argument that if the present system continues, and if the so-called success of his Government continues, the pensioners must progressively lose out. Slowly, inexorably, year after year—it does not matter how we dress it up—in real terms the bills that they have to face will be higher and their incomes lower. That cannot be allowed to happen.
I know that the proposal in the amendment will cost money. No doubt the Minister will tell us how many millions of pounds it will cost. I believe strongly that if the British people were told that increases in national insurance contributions were necessary to provide a reasonable living income for retired people who have served this country well over many years, they would accept that because they would see it to be fair and just. They know, more than the Minister appears to know, that pensioners are suffering. The Minister does not comprehend that. If the Minister has confidence in the


Government and compassion for pensioners, bearing in mind the way in which the system will develop, he will say that he has had a blinding conversion to our way of thinking, that the Government accept the new clause and that what we propose will start to operate from next Thursday.

Dr. Boyson: To have such a conversion I should need to be blinded. I shall follow the example of the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) and be brief.
In considering this matter, we must compare the financial position of the pensioner today with what he was getting in 1978. [Interruption.] It is obvious that Opposition Members fear the figures that I propose to give. My confidence in the Government is such that I look forward to the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire questioning us for many years to come on issues such as this.
In November 1978, the single pensioner received £19·50. Uprated in November 1983 for inflation in terms of the RPI, whereas the single pensioner should have received, with uprating in November of that year, £32·95, the pension in fact went up to £34·05, over £1 more in purchasing power than the pension was previously. The single and married pension increase over those five years was 74·6 per cent., whereas the increase in prices was 68·8 per cent. Naturally, all hon. Members would like the pension to be higher, but we can proceed only from a sound economic base, a fact which is understood at least on this side of the House.
I will not bore the House by giving further figures, of which hon. Members are aware from previous debates, showing what we have done by way of heating allowances and the rest. I need only quote from a letter which the Prime Minister wrote on 18 July to the director of Help the Aged, in which she said:
I can assure you that we intend to do the best we can for pensioners. I will ensure that they share in the prosperity that will be brought with the country's economic recovery.
As I have said on numerous occasions, the best thing that the Government have done has not only been to increase marginally pensioners' purchasing power but, having brought down inflation, to ensure that pensions, especially occupational non-indexed pensions, continue to be worth something in money terms, and, similarly, the fact that savings, which were almost destroyed under the last Labour Government, are now retaining their value.

Mr. David Penhaligon: The Minister gave the standard response, but as it is nearly 1 o'clock in the morning and nobody is listening — [Interruption.] Nobody who counts, other than the Minister, is listening. Perhaps, therefore, we can be rather more candid on the issue than is normally the case when pensions are being discussed.
I understand the Government's position and I have no desire to distort it. It is to uprate pensions each year according to whatever the real increase in inflation was during the previous year — to do no more or less —making an adjustment according to any modification that the figures suggest. That means that, at best, pensioners can look forward to precisely the same standard of living in future as they are receiving now.
The Minister's comments coincide with a statement by the Prime Minister at the weekend that those in work were enjoying the highest standard of living since the economy

was measured. That is not surprising when those in work have had an increase in their standard of living in every year but one during the last 20 or 30 years. The Government claim that as a great triumph, and we are pleased that the standard of living of our people is increasing as time goes by.
1 am
The Government's policy of raising pensions by the amount of the previous year's inflation means that that section of the community will be at a disadvantage. I realise that this amendment would present difficulties during periods of substantial inflation. If, sadly, the inflation rate should reach 10 per cent. or 20 per cent. I can see that the ratchet effect of giving the higher increase would create substantial problems. It was the Labour party who cancelled the arrangements that existed until 1976 and pensioners have lost a considerable amount of money because of that.
It might be difficult to write this provision into the law of the land but I should like to see the Minister departing from the policy that the Government are defending of increasing pensions only by the percentage increase in the cost of living for the previous year. On the Government 's own figures that means that the standard of living of those who have retired compared with that of people in work will deteriorate as time goes on. Pensioners recognise that.
We cannot talk about living standards in absolute terms because everyone here has got a good living standard relative to those who live in Bangladesh. Yet our pensioners can see that those who are in work are enjoying a larger percentage of the fruits of society and of the economy. I put it to the Minister that there is no fundamental justification for that. The Government's policy of merely improving pensions by the rate of inflation means that at best pensioners will get no increase in their living standard.
All the predictions for the next three of four years are for a marginal increase in the cost of living. That means that each year pension increases will be indexed according to the previous year's inflation rate which will probably be less than the rate of inflation in the year in which the pension increase is awarded. During their term of office the Government promised to pensioners a reduced standard of living compared to that of those in work. I do not believe that many of the Minister's own party want that, nor do the public at large. I assure the Government that if they do not change their policy, pressure on them will mount greatly during this Parliament.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I have one question for the Minister. I am grateful for his explanation in answer to the question posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), but why should our pensioners continue to have such an appallingly poor level of pension compared with pensioners in all the other countries in the European Community? Even if there is a level that the Government are not prepared to give, why will they not at least bring the basic pension up to the next lowest pension among our partners? If they cannot advance towards that by accepting amendments such as we have proposed, they are giving pensioners a poor deal whatever the absolute level of wealth in society.

Mr. Kennedy: I was interested to hear the Minister's reference to the real purchasing power of pensions. Can


he tell us how far that bold statement in defence and supposed support of pensions goes in the light of the other provisions of the Bill, which were approved earlier and which will lead to pensioners having to pay more for optical services which are now subsidised through the NHS? How can the Minister make sweeping claims that under the Government of which he is a member the purchasing power of pensions continues to improve when elsewhere in the same piece of legislation the Government are taking decisions which will increase the financial burden which pensioners will have to endure? I should be grateful for clarification of that point.

Dr. Boyson: When comparing our position with Europe we must take into account not only the pensioner and the supplementary benefit recipient but also the employment position. The percentage of money spent is not different, but our priorities are. The Liberals are all here, for once. Perhaps they should adjourn and work out a breakdown of social security benefits here and in Europe.
The figures that I have given are based on accepted RPI figures and what pensioners are receiving in relation to what they would have received if the 1978 figures were revalued. Pensioners' purchasing power has increased by 5 per cent. My hon. Friends would be delighted if we could increase that further.

Mr. Michael Meacher: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm, before he waxes too complacently about the pensioner, that if in 1980 this Government had not reversed the provisions of Labour's Social Security Pensions Act 1975, the single pensioner today would be receiving about £3 more and the married pensioner couple about £5 more? Will he also confirm that, contrary to the Prime Minister's promise that pensioners would keep up with the rise in national standards, the reversal of Labour's pensions act has meant that they have done no better than keep up with prices, which is quite different?

Dr. Boyson: Wages have increased more than prices. If pensions had been tied to wages instead of prices, the purchasing power of old-age pensions would be more. However, if the Government had not taken action in many other ways the inflation that we inherited from the last Labour Government would still be with us and pensioners would be much worse off.

Mr. Kirkwood: It may come as a devastating surprise to the Minister that we have given due consideration to the closely argued logic that he has deployed this evening, and that I must tell the House that we are not satisfied.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:-

The House divided: Ayes 27, Noes, 127.

Division No. 275]
[1.07 am


AYES


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Bermingham, Gerald
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Bruce, Malcolm
Kennedy, Charles


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)
Meacher, Michael


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Nellist, David


Dobson, Frank
Penhaligon, David


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Pike, Peter


Fisher, Mark
Skinner, Dennis


Freud, Clement
Steel, Rt Hon David


Harman, Ms Harriet
Wallace, James


Haynes, Frank
Wareing, Robert



Williams, Rt Hon A.
Mr. Michael Medowcroft and



Mr. Archy Kirkwood.


Tellers for the Ayes:



NOES


Alexander, Richard
Maude, Hon Francis


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Amess, David
Mayhew, Sir Patrick


Ancram, Michael
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Ashby, David
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Aspinwall, Jack
Mills, lain (Meriden)


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Mitchell, David (NW Hants)


Batiste, Spencer
Moynihan, Hon C.


Bellingham, Henry
Murphy, Christopher


Bendell, Vivian
Newton, Tony


Benyon, William
Nicholls, Patrick


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Norris, Steven


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Onslow, Cranley


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Osborn, Sir John


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Ottaway, Richard


Bright, Graham
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


Brinton, Tim
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Brooke, Hon Peter
Powell, William (Corby)


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Powley, John


Burt, Alistair
Proctor, K. Harvey


Butterfill, John
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Robinson, Mark (N'port W)


Chapman, Sydney
Rowe, Andrew


Chope, Christopher
Sackville, Hon Thomas


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Colvin, Michael
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Conway, Derek
Sims, Roger


Coombs, Simon
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Cope, John
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Couchman, James
Speed, Keith


Cranborne, Viscount
Speller, Tony


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Spencer, Derek


Dorrell, Stephen
Squire, Robin


Dover, Den
Stanbrook, Ivor


Dunn, Robert
Stern, Michael


Evennett, David
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Fallon, Michael
Stevens, Martin (Fulham)


Forth, Eric
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Stradling Thomas, J.


Gale, Roger
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Goodlad, Alastair
Thorne, Neil (llford S)


Grant, Sir Anthony
Thurnham, Peter


Gummer, John Selwyn
Tracey, Richard


Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Hayhoe, Barney
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Hickmet, Richard
Viggers, Peter


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Holt, Richard
Walden, George


Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)
Waller, Gary


Jackson, Robert
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)
Wheeler, John


Lester, Jim
Whitfield, John


Lilley, Peter
Wilkinson, John


Lloyd, Ian (Havant)
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)
Winterton, Nicholas


Lord, Michael
Wolfson, Mark


Lyell, Nicholas
Wood, Timothy


Macfarlane, Neil
Young, Sir George (Acton)


MacGregor, John



Maclean, David John
Tellers for the Noes:


Major, John
Mr. Michael Neubert and


Malins, Humfrey
Mr.Tim Sainsbury.


Mather, Carol

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 29

FAMILY PRACTITIONER SERVICES

'(1) Subject to subsection (2) below, section 10 of the National Health Service Act 1977 is hereby repealed.
(2) The following section shall be substituted for section 15 of the National Health Service Act 1977—
"15. It is the duty of each District Health Authority in accordance with regulations—

(a) to make arrangements in pursuance of this Act for the provision of general medical services, general dental services, general ophthalmic services and pharmaceutical services for their locality, and
(b) to perform such other functions relating to those services as may be prescribed.".

 
(3) All Family Practitioner Committees shall cease to exist on the appointed day.
(4) All functions which immediately before the appointed day were functions exercisable by a Family Practitioner Committee shall be conferred upon the District Health Authority or jointly upon those District Health Authorities which established that Family Practitioner Committee.
(5) Wherever in the National Health Service Act 1977 as amended by the Health Services Act 1980 and in other enactments, orders and regulations the functions of a Family Practitioner Committee are prescribed, those references shall from the the appointed day be read as references to the functions of a District Health Authority.
(6) It shall be the responsibility of the District Health Authority in pursuance of its responsibilities under section 15 of the National Health Authority in pursuance of its responsibilities under section 15 of the National Health Service Act 1977 to establish a Primary Care Committee which shall include persons nominated by the Local Medical Committee for that locality, the Local Dental Committee for that locality, the Local Optical Committee for that locality, the Local Pharmaceutical Committee for that locality and such other persons as the Secretary of State shall prescribe in regulations.
(7) Schedule 4 of this Act shall have effect.'. —[Mr. Dobson.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: Amendment No. 12, in page 4, line 4, leave out Clause 2.
Amendment No. 79, in schedule 2, page 31, line 7, after 'chairman', insert
'and he shall not be the medical practitioner, the dental practitioner, the pharmacist, the ophthalmic optician or the dispensing optician nominated respectively under sub-paragraph (3)(a) (b) (c) (d) and (e) below,'.
Amendment No. 80, in schedule 2, in page 31, line 27,after 'persons', insert
'not being members of the contracting profession'.
Amendment No. 81, in schedule 2, in page 31, line 30,after 'persons', insert
'not being members of the contracting profession'.
Amendment No. 82, in schedule 2, in page 31, line 34, after 'appointed', insert
'not being members of the contracting profession'.
Amendment No. 83, in schedule 2, in page 31, line 35, at end insert
'and the Secretary of State shall so arrange these appointments as to ensure that at least one person nominated by each district health authority entitled to make nominations in respect of sub-paragraph (g) above is appointed to the Committee.'.
Government amendment No. 84.
Amendment No. 85, in schedule 2, in page 31, line 46, at end insert—
'(5A) If a local pharmaceutical committee so require, they may appoint deputies for those persons nominated under sub-paragraph (3)(c).'.

Amendment No. 86, in schedule 2, in page 31, line 46, at end insert—
(5A) If a Local Pharmaceutical Committee so require, the Secretary of State shall appoint from among pharmacists nominated by the Local Pharmaceutical Committee under sub-paragraph (3)(c) above a pharmacist to be the deputy of such a pharmacist appointed from among persons nominated by them under sub-paragraph (3)(c) above. '.
Government amendment No. 105.

Mr. Dobson: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I will take your word, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as to what we are discussing.
The Labour party does not support the Government's proposals to separate family practitioner committees from district health authorities. We accept that the degree of integration to date has not been marked or effective, but we and the Royal Commission on the National Health Service feel that they should be integrated rather than separated. We advocate that the system which has prevailed in Scotland since the reorganisation of the National Health Service, and which has worked well, should be extended to this country.
The report of the joint working group on collaboration to which the Minister referred contains an amazing statement about the Government's intention to separate the FPCs:
The intentions underlying the proposed change are to bring district health authorities and family practitioner committees into a closer working relationship.
Anyone who brings things into a closer working relationship by separating them seems to have gone quietly barmy.
The fourth page of that document says:
If the Government's present proposals prevail, in their effort to integrate district health authority services with those of family practitioner committees they will be faced with the fact that 60 of the family practitioner committees relate to one or more district health authorities; 17 family practitioner committees relate to three district health authorities; in the case of seven family practitioner committees they each relate to four district health authorities, and in six cases they relate to five or more district health authorities.
In the reverse direction, 22 district health authorities relate to more than one family practitioner committee. That structure does not seem calculated to bring about an integrated approach between district health authorities and FPCs. In other words, we are faced with a structural shambles that will be made worse by the Government's proposals.
It appears that the proposition has been sold to the British Medical Association on the grounds that those free-standing and separate FPCs will be better placed to look after the interests of family practitioners and the services that they provide. We believe that that separation will expose FPCs to more interference from the Secretary of State than in the past. In support of that contention, I shall quote what the Minister said in Committee on 21 February. Doctors and the BMA should note it carefully. He said:
The fact is that these committees have to be accountable for substantial sums of public money. The FPCs are disbursing at the moment for services which cost £2½ billion. It is about one-fifth of the total current expenditure on the National Health Service. For the disbursement of all that money there really has to be a line of responsibility and accountability to the Secretary of State".—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 21 February 1984; c. 314.]
In fact, the FPCs incur small administrative expenses. Those are the only expenses for which they are responsible—the £2·5 billion expenditure is incurred by


doctors, dentists and opticians. We believe that in time what we are saying will prove correct — that the Secretary of State intends to intervene in the spending of doctors, dentists, and opticians, to the disadvantage of their patients. The Government's proposals are structurally and managerially unsound, and calculated to give the Secretary of State more powers than he should have over general practitioners, dentists and opticians. That is why we oppose them.

Mr. Meadoweroft: I should like to explain amendment No. 83. There appears to be an anomaly in the Bill as it is drafted in that the paragraph that relates to representations means that there could be four representatives from one DHA. I know that that is not the intention of the Bill, but it could happen.
Also, in several places round the country more than four DHAs are involved. The purpose of amendment No. 83 is to make it possible for all those DHAs to be represented, and says that the Secretary of State will have a duty to ensure that all the DHAs are represented among the seven representatives in subparagraph (h)—no more and no less.
I hope that our amendment tidies up the situation and allows for more consultation. It means that none of the DHAs is left out in the cold in the new state of affairs.

Mr. John Hannam: I declare an interest as an adviser to the Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain. There are four amendments in my name in this group, three of which relate to the composition of family practitioner committees. The fourth, No. 85, proposes deputies for pharmacists on the FPCs.
Amendments Nos. 80, 81 and 82 relate to the need to achieve a proper balance between lay and contracting members. I welcome very much the Government's proposal in amendment No. 84 to ensure that the members appointed by local authorities, district health authorities and those appointed after consultation by the Secretary of State shall not be members of the contracting professions. That will ensure that no one profession dominates the proceedings of the FPC to the advantage of that profession and consequently to the disadvantage of the public.
If my right hon. and learned Friend had not been able to accept the case for creating that protection in the Bill I would have had to embark on giving a series of examples of the way in which some FPCs have allegedly been guilty of acting against the public interest because of domination by a particular profession. I am pleased that the Government have acted promptly in dealing with this important matter.
Amendment No. 85 tackles another problem that we face in seeking to ensure that the FPCs maintain a proper balance of membership at their meetings. It seeks to allow pharmacists the right to send a deputy if they cannot attend a meeting of contractors. The Bill currently proposes that deputies should only be allowed for contractors represented by a single member — in particular, the ophthalmic opticians. Of course it is desirable that one dispensing and one ophthalmic optician should be present to represent their professions, but it is also accepted in the Bill that two persons nominated by the local pharmaceutical committee should normally be present too. I hope that I can convince my right hon. and learned Friend that because of a legal requirement in the Medicines Act 1968

that pharmacists must be present at their pharmacies whenever they are open, they should also be allowed to send a deputy. The pharmacists are the only contracting profession required by legislation to be present at their place of work, and I believe that they should be a special case.
At the end of March 1984 there were 10,928 pharmacists in Great Britain responsible for dispensing over 300 million prescriptions at a total cost of £1·25 billion. The presence of pharmacists at meetings of contractors is essential in order to ensure that an adequate pharmaceutical service is provided to meet the needs of the public. It is not envisaged that this facility would be utilised on many occasions. It is just as important that continuity of representation should be maintained. However, on the small number of occasions when a pharmacist may be prevented from attending by his legal obligation to be present at his pharmacy, the use of a deputy would facilitate the work of the FPC and protect the public interest.
Pharmacists provide a dedicated community service and play an important role in the administration of health care. I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will be sympathetic towards that amendment.

Mrs. Jill Knight: I support my right hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam) in what he says. I also ask my hon. and learned Friend to consider the situation that will arise when dispensing opticians are no longer able to be placed on the FPCs. There will be a vacancy to be filled. I hope that the balance between lay and professional members will be maintained when that vacancy is filled.
The proposed new part II to schedule 5 to the National Health Service Act 1977 states in paragraph 7A(2) that the vacancy be filled by a doctor, a dentist, a pharmacist or an optician. There are eight doctors on the FPC already, three dentists and two pharmacists, but only one ophthalmic optician. There is not a very good balance. I suggest that the vacancy should be filled by the appointment of a second ophthalmic optician, when the dispenser is no longer present. I ask my hon. and learned Friend to take that point on board.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: On new clause 29, throughout our debates there has been a division between the Opposition and ourselves about our intention to give independence to family practitioner committees.
The report of the working party on collaboration contains many features with which the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) agrees. In practice, I believe that the further we go the more we shall erode his opposition and weaken his belief that somehow we are dividing the service. We need FPCs performing effectively while developing collaboration with district health authorities, but we do not support the hon. Gentleman's proposal to integrate or subordinate the FPCs within the DHAs.
We believe that the primary services — family doctors, dentists, dispensing pharmacists and opticians — are so important that they should be the special interest of FPCs. All this is part of the task of ensuring the right balance between the hospital service and community-based health care.
It is always important to ensure that the community services, which are the primary services, are not


dominated by the hospital service, which inevitably absorbs most of the money spent on the National Health Service. At present the balance within the DHAs, between hospital and community services is very much a one-way matter. In the central London health district with which the hon. Gentleman is concerned, of the £108 million annual budget £100 million goes to the hospital services and only £8 million to the community health services.
I do not believe that we are ready to include primary care services within the DHAs as well. I believe that specialist committees collaborating with the DHAs are the correct way forward. The hon. Gentleman's proposal would also involve considerable expense because a primary care committee for every district to deal with these specialist problems would mean 192 such committees. I believe that the 90 family practitioner committees can do a more cost-effective job.
The hon. Gentleman did not touch on amendment No. 79, which is somewhat too hostile to the professions in seeking to exclude them from the chairmanship of FPCs, although we shall try to achieve the right balance between lay and professional chairmen.
The hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Meadowcroft) seeks with amendment No. 83 to cover the problem that arises when an FPC covers a territory affecting more than four DHAs. I hope that I can meet the point by assuring him that in that situation we intend to ensure that each DHA is represented on the FPC. We dealt with this in Committee, but I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's problem in that he was not fortunate enough to be selected to serve on the Standing Committee.
I resist amendment No. 83 because it would impose a rather narrow solution. We propose to live up to the commitment that I have given in ways that fit each FPC so that we can respond to local circumstances. In some cases we can ensure that an additional DHA obtains a representative through the seven lay appointments made by the Secretary of State. In others, especially the larger FPCs, it would probably be better to make the committee bigger while preserving the lay-professional balance in the resulting membership.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that commitment from me. I am sure that any successor to my post will adhere to it. We shall then have the flexibility to achieve the aim that he seeks in a way that suits each local FPC.
On the desire of pharmacists to have deputies, my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter has the support of the Opposition as their amendment No. 86 deals with the same issue as my hon. Friend's amendment. We have always maintained that deputies should be allowed on FPCs only for professions which have only one representative. As there is only one dispensing optician and one ophthalmic optician, an entire profession could be left unrepresented if an individual was unable to attend.
If deputies are allowed from the other professions, however, continuity of attendance may be destroyed. I agree that the pharmacists have the most attractive case in this respect as there are only two of them and, as my hon. Friend pointed out, there is the problem that the pharmacist must be in the pharmacy if it is to be open for dispensing. Nevertheless, some of the eight doctors and three dentists could also make out a case for having deputies. We want working committees, not floating public meetings with a different attendance on each occasion. Therefore, we prefer to keep continuity. We

must persist in that for fear of changing the nature of their work. On the other hand, we have, in amendment No. 84, met at least one of the concerns of the Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain. It pointed out to us—and the case was underlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter that on some FPCs the principle of achieving a balance between lay and professional members is being damaged because some of the lay places are being taken by professionals, and not in a way that is of great assistance to pharmacists.
We accept that case, and amendment No. 84, with the obvious assistance of the parliamentary draftsman, is the right way of handling the matter. It will ensure that we maintain the present balance, and that no one can use lay places for extra professionals. Having met the Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain to that extent, I hope that my hon. Friend will accept that although he has a fairly compelling point on deputies, if we conceded that we would concede to the others, and the very nature of the work of FPCs would be changed.

Mr. Dobson: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 1

SUPPLY ETC OF OPTICAL APPLIANCES

Mr. Meadowcroft: I beg to move amendment No. 6, in page 2, line 41, after 'Council', insert
'and such bodies representative of the interests of the general public as seem to the Privy Council to be appropriate'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 7, in page 3, line 5, leave out from 'Council' to end of line 7 and insert
'and to such bodies representative of the interests of the general public as seem to the Privy Council to be appropriate to the modifications they propose to make and consider any observations of those bodies thereon'.

Mr. Meadowcroft: The amendments refer to section 25 of the Opticians Act 1958, which the Bill deals with in clause 1 (2). Under section 25 of that Act, the Privy Council has the power of veto over rules made by the General Optical Council concerning a wide range of topics, including advertising. The Government's proposed amendment will give the Privy Council the power to change such rules rather than to veto them. They intend apparently to use this power to change the rules to allow opticians to advertise.
In principle, we do not object to advertising, although it might have been preferable if the Government had left the GOC to reform itself. However, we believe that it is crucial that, especially in such a sensitive and important area, the advertising should be carefully handled. Therefore, the amendments seek to ensure that the interests, in effect, of both sides of the equation are met, and that the general public and such representative bodies as might be noted in certain circumstances, are consulted in addition to the other bodies mentioned.
I think that the Government accept that in recent years there has been a growth in the number of voluntary bodies. Obviously hon. Members on both sides of the House welcome that. Often those associated with the NHS would prosper by being involved more in the process. Therefore, it would seem advantageous to widen the powers of consultation in the Bill. It is clearly important that the


Government should tread cautiously about advertising in the Health Service, and it would seem to be beneficial to keep the interests of the consumer uppermost in our minds at all times. I hope that the amendments will enable the Government to do that.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I do not quite know how the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Meadowcroft) has the nerve to address the House about the interests of the consumer. About five hours ago I was busy defending the interests of the consumer while explaining the possibilities of extending choice and competition, and he was defending the opticians' monopoly, hinting that his party would defend the solicitors' monopoly on conveyancing next year, and defending, almost to perfection, the present status of the profession vis-a-vis the wider interests of the consumer.
On the other hand, we are always happy to welcome a sinner who repents. I think that the Liberal party agrees with our proposals on advertising. We think it desirable to have advertising, and I can assure the hon. Gentleman — as I hope that he will have assumed from my previous speeches—that we shall bear the interests of the general public very much in mind. I do not think that statutory consultation with bodies representing the general public is the right way of going about things. We shall certainly listen to voluntary bodies with interest and we shall undoubtedly have the interests of the consumer uppermost in our minds throughout.
Like the hon. Gentleman, I hope that we shall not have to use the powers. The chance has now come for the GOP to reflect on where we are, to go away and to come back with proposals of its own that protect legitimate professional interests, stopping advertising about how to carry out professional tasks but opening up advertising about location, price, and all the things that we talked about earlier. I think that the hon. Gentleman agrees with me on that, and I hope that he will now accept that his amendments are not necessary.

Mr. Meadowcroft: The Minister is very provocative, even at this late hour, and it would be dangerous to rise to provocation. We noticed that he was defending the cause of the consumer; indeed, he was about the only person on his side of the House who was doing it. We are well aware of his position. In the light of the hour and of the Minister's assurances and sympathetic comments, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I beg to move amendment No. 8, in page 3, line 9, after 'which', insert
'.subject to the following provisions of this section,'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendment No. 9.

Mr. Clarke: The amendments fulfil a commitment that we gave to the Standing Committee that considered the Bill. If we do have to use the powers—as I said a few moments ago, I hope we do not—to amend the GOC's rules on publicity without its consent, the order we make will be subject to the affirmative and not the negative resolution procedure. The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) asked for it and we are honouring our commitment.

Mr. Dobson: I thank the Minister for honouring his undertaking.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments made: No. 9, in page 3, line 11, at end insert—
'(9) No order to which this subsection applies shall be made unless a draft of the order has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.
(10) Subsection (9) above applies to an order—

(a) which is made by virtue of paragraph (a) of subsection (6) above and approves rules subject to modifications; or
(b) which is made by virtue of paragraph (b) of that subsection.

unless it is contained in a statutory instrument that states that the General Optical Council have indicated their consent to the terms of the order either in the course of consultations under subsection (6)(b) above or in observations under subsection (7) above.".'
No. 11, in page 3, line 34, leave out subsections (8) and (9).—[Mr. Kenneth Clarke.]

Clause 3

FINANCE IN NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE

Amendment made: No. 15, in page 6, line 15, leave out 'varying' and insert 'increasing or reducing'.—[Mr. Kenneth Clarke.]

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I beg to move amendment No. 16, in page 6, line 18, at end insert—
(4) In subsection (11) of section 121 of the Mental Health Act 1983 (Mental Health Act Commission) for the words "sub-paragraphs (4) and (5) were omitted" there shall be substituted the words "the reference to a member in sub-paragraph (4) included a reference to the chairman".'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 57 and 65.

Mr. Clarke: The amendments permit the Secretary of State to reimburse the travelling and subsistence expenses of the chairman and members of the Mental Health Act Commission. It was a most unfortunate slip last year that we did not give ourselves the legal power to do so. We are already paying them and, judging from last year's debate, everyone wants us to do so. Therefore, I trust that the House will support the amendments.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 4

PROFESSIONAL REMUNERATION IN NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE

Mr. Dobson: I beg to move amendment No. 17, in page 10, line 26, at end insert
'provided that the effect thereof does not result in a retrospective adjustment of remuneration for a period greater than one year.'
The Government have taken powers unto themselves to claw back what they call excess remuneration paid to the various contractors, including the pharmacists. All the contractors are saying is that this "son of clawback" should not be possible beyond one year. It would provide an incentive for the Department to sort out its negotiations quickly, and it would make it easier for small businesses to make some prediction as to their incomes and outgoings. I hope that the Minister will be able to accept that it is not reasonable to take money from people retrospectively as a result of the sloth of his own Department.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I do not accept that we are doing anything retrospectively. As I explained in the Standing Committee, we are simply seeking to legitimate long-standing arrangements between ourselves and the professions, and to implement an agreement that we had with the negotiators for the pharmacists last year.
I accept that it is desirable to make sure that we do not have great delays occurring before we seek to recoup from the pharmacists. It is a bit late to do so in relation to the previous negotiations. I am glad to say that we are about to enter into negotiations with them about the future contract. The main aim will be to simplify the procedures, making sure that there are not excessive delays, and that we do not discover, upon inquiry, that there are large sums accruing to one party or another after an undue period.
I prefer to reserve the matter for negotiation and to see whether we can reach some satisfactory understanding with the profession for the future that will make legislative change unnecessary.

Mr. Dobson: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 4

PROFESSIONAL REMUNERATION IN NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE

Amendment made: No. 18, in page 10, line 27, leave out subsection (5).—[Mr. Kenneth Clarke.]

Clause 5

REIMBURSEMENT OF COST OF MEDICAL AND MATERNITY TREATMENT IN MEMBER STATES OF EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I beg to move amendment No. 19, in page 11, line 3, after '(a)', insert 'which is'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 20.

Mr. Clarke: These are drafting amendments.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: If this is simply a drafting amendment, does not the Minister consider that, by removing lines 27 and 28, he is thereby removing France's overseas territories? My understanding is that clause 5(1), by referring to "in a member State", under the terms of the reciprocal agreements set out in Council regulation No. 1408, includes France's overseas territories, including French Guyana. We have the ridiculous situation in reverse that, if somebody turns up with a broken leg in Southend hospital who, when asked where he comes from, says Guyana, he pays if he comes from British Guyana, but does not pay if he comes from French Guyana. My understanding is that, by removing this definition of member state, the Minister is excluding France's overseas territories from places in which treatment can be given.
Secondly, I wish to ask the Minister whether, by removing this, he is discriminating against the one overseas territory we have, following the granting of British citizenship to Gibraltar. If Spain joins the Community, I wonder whether we will deprive the citizens

of Gibraltar of something to which they would be entitled if the definition of member state were still included. I therefore ask the Minister whether, by removing these two lines, which include the definition of member state, he is excluding France's overseas territories, which would be included if the definition were retained.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. If by this amendment we are removing France's overseas territories, I think it is a mistake. The intention is to maintain our present arrangements with the EC, and merely to make a minor change which will extend the present arrangements covering the self-employed and the employed to non-employed EC citizens resident in this country. We do not intend to make any territorial changes. I will pursue the point that my hon. Friend makes. If we discover that it has the effect that he claimed, I will write to him on the subject. Indeed, I will write to him in any case, and deal with his point. If we are doing what he says we are doing, I suspect that there will be another drafting amendment in another place to make sure that our arrangements with the EC remain unaffected so far as these territories are concerned.
I have heard my hon. Friend speak persuasively on other occasions about the distinctions that we draw between different territories. We have EC agreements which extend to all the territories of all the EC countries. With other countries, we try to have reciprocal agreements. In the case of countries that offer free treatment to our nationals, we tend to offer free treatment to theirs. In the case of countries that make our nationals pay, we do not see why the taxpayer in this country should offer free treatment to their nationals when they come to this country. We try to sort out these difficulties, certainly with friendly countries, such as what was formerly British Guyana, and to make these matters fair as between the citizens of different countries as far as possible.
I was not trying to slip something through. These are drafting amendments, and my hon. Friend has now got me rather concerned that we might have our drafting wrong. I will write to him when we have had more time to consider it.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 20, in page 11, leave out lines 27 and 28.

Clause 6

SEVERE DISABLEMENT ALLOWANCE

Mr. Alfred Morris: I beg to move amendment No. 23, in page 12, line 20, leave out '20' and insert '25'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 24, in page 12, line 41, leave out paragraph (d).
No. 25, in page 13, line 8, leave out '80' and insert '60'.
No. 90, in schedule 3, page 37, line 28, after 'person', insert
'of an age group eligible to claim severe disablement allowance.'.

Mr. Morris: These are important amendments. I wish to make it clear that they in no way alter our opposition, to the replacement of NCIP arid HNCIP by the proposed severe disablement allowance.
I quote at the outset from a letter sent to me this week by Peter Large, who has the respect of both sides of the House. Writing on behalf of the Disablement Income Group, he said:
You will be interested to note that the DIG Executive Committee discussed the outcome of the Committee Stage of the Bill and what we might seek at the Report Stage. As you will guess, we were very disappointed indeed to hear that the Government dismiss all of our criticisms. We decided that it would be wrong to attempt to have the 80% degree of disablement reduced as this would imply that we accepted the irrelevant test of degree of disability for an incomes maintenance benefit. We cannot accept such nonsense. An income maintenance benefit should be payable on a straight test of inability to work.
Peter Large goes on:
This is not the step towards a more coherent system of benefits for disabled people that was promised in the 1979 Conservative manifesto. It will make the rationalization of the benefit system more difficult and force more disabled people on to supplementary benefit for incomes maintenance. It is a step away from what we have consistently sought. It is a step towards further confusion.
This is why we have not sought any change in the 80% disablement test — apart from its abolition. We just want Clause 6 deleted. We do, however, fully support the representations of the National Bureau for Handicapped Students for the age cut-off for the single test should be raised from 20 to 25 years.
We entirely appreciate the bitter disappointment felt by the DIG executive, and its belief that opposition should be to the whole concept of the severe disablement allowance, for the reasons so well expressed in the letter from Peter Large. Nevertheless, we have taken the view that both the 80 per cent. test and the case for raising the age cut-off from 20 to 25 ought to be debated. We have tabled our amendments for that reason.
We believe the 80 per cent. test to be an additional hurdle to an incapacity benefit. We believe that the test will be vastly expensive to administer, even with the passport arrangements. Indeed, those arrangements will themselves cause many problems. When, as so often happens, the DHSS decides to remove someone's mobility allowance, that person will be told that in order not to forfeit his severe disablement allowance he will have to pass the 80 per cent. disability test.
Which will come first — the appeal against withdrawal of mobility allowance or the 80 per cent. test? Will the Minister allow the same medical board and the same medical appeal tribunal to decide both questions? I ask these questions against the background that it has taken more than a year to decide on the fees payable to doctors for a pilot study of the possibility of assessing mobility allowance and attendance allowance at the same time. What is the BMA's view?
Our amendment proposes to reduce the level of the test from 80 per cent. to 60 per cent., which is the level proposed by the Social Security Advisory Committee. The Minister has said that this would cost £20 million initially, rising to £40 million above the cost of the 80 per cent. test. Perhaps he will now give us the basis on which his estimates are calculated.
If the Minister looks at the figures for the industrial injuries scheme, he will see that only 160 industrial accidents out of 5,240 were assessed at 80 per cent. or above, and only 50 out of 780 prescribed diseases. If 60

per cent. and 70 per cent. awards were included, there would be 150 more accident awards and 100 more disease awards.
One of the criticisms of using the industrial injuries scheme for SDA is that the experience of the scheme in assessing high levels of disability is very limited. The vast majority of assessments are of 30 per cent. and below. Bringing the figure down to 60 per cent. will at least extend the possibility that doctors making assessments will have seen people with a comparable disability before.
Another of our amendments raises the age cut-off to 25. We believe not only that there are clearly identifiable people aged from 20 to 25 who will lose benefit as a result of the Government's decision on the age cut-off but that their rehabilitation and attempts to obtain employment will be impeded.
There are two distinct groups — those who will become recipients of SDA before the age of 20 under the simple incapacity test, and those who will become incapable of work after the age of 20. Someone awarded SDA before the age of 20 will have to pass the 80 per cent. test if he seeks to return to benefit following a period as short as eight weeks during which he is adjudged to be capable of work. I am aware, of course, that periods of training link with periods of incapacity, so we are probably talking only of periods of actual employment. I accept also that many of those who qualify for SDA before the age of 20 would have no difficulty in passing the 80 per cent. test. There are, however, many young disabled, and I believe that the Spastics Society has identified several congenitally disabled in its schools and colleges who would not pass the 80 per cent. test and whose ability to earn a living will not be known until they have tried.
Amendment No. 23 is designed solely to protect the position of those for whom NCIP was created. I refer to those who became incapable of work before they had been able to establish themselves within the contributory system. Taken together, our amendments are important to many severely disabled, not least the young disabled, and I hope that for the reasons I have given they will be received favourably by the House.

Mr. Newton: I shall try to respond to the amendment in the speedy manner in which the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) moved it. The suggestion that the 80 per cent. test is irrelevant to this sort of benefit is an argument that applies similarly to the household duties test. There is no real relevance in a test to ascertain whether someone can do his household duties if what he wants to do, and would otherwise do, is to work in a normal, remunerated occupation. The household duties test was a means of rationing benefit. I have accepted throughout that the 80 per cent. test is a means of rationing the available resources among the disabled under 20 years of age. I contend that a severity of disablement test without regard to sex or marital status is more rational than a household duties test.
I shall consider what the right hon. Gentleman said about passporting and the results when someone comes off passport. There are a number of practical issues that we need to resolve in devising a proper administrative framework for the scheme. I shall not attempt to discuss the broader issues that he raised, but I shall make two specific comments that are relevant to the practical considerations and which go beyond what has been said hitherto.
First and most important is a comment that goes directly to the concern that has been expressed about the position in which someone would find himself if he had qualified for SDA before 20 years of age and then wished to attempt employment thereafter. I said in Committee that I would give further consideration to the matter. I am not in a position to offer a concession on the age of 20—for example, to make it 25—but I recognise the concern about the possible disincentive to seek work which has been expressed in the representations that I have received. As I am anxious not to discourage disabled youngsters from seeking work wherever that is possible, I am happy to say that we shall be introducing regulations that will provide for any break or breaks of up to six months in aggregate to be ignored for the purposes of deciding whether a person has been continuously incapable of work since the age of 20 or before. We intend that this concession shall apply to all SDA claims, including the first.
I wish to make it clear that the proposed concession will not be a linking rule in the normal sense. A person will still have to serve a continuous period of 196 days of incapacity before becoming entitled to SDA after a break in title. Similarly, the rule will apply only where someone can show that he has been continuously incapable of work for a period of at least 196 days beginning before the age of 20. Even with those limitations, I hope that the House will accept that there will be a significant advance for those who have qualified for SDA to be able to have a longer period than some feared under our original proposals to test whether they can work and then be able, if they are not able to work, to qualify for SDA.
My second specific comment picks up an issue that was raised in Committee by the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field). As I said in Committee, it is proposed to use the powers in paragraph 6 of schedule 3 to introduce regulations that will enable the adjudication officer to dispense with a reference for a medical examination and to determine the disablement questions himself in prescribed circumstances.
As I said in Committee—and this is the passporting point—we intend that that will apply where a claimant is registered blind or partially sighted, where he is receiving attendance allowance, mobility allowance or war pensioners' mobility supplement or where there is already an industrial injuries or war pensions assessment of at least 80 per cent.
2 am
In specific response to a point raised in Committee by the hon. Member for Birkenhead, I can now announce that the passporting arrangements will also cover cases where an award has been made under the vaccine damage scheme or where a claimant has an invalid trike or car or private car allowance under the NHS or war pensioners' vehicles scheme.
Those are relatively modest points that we were in danger of overlooking. I am indebted to the hon. Member for Birkenhead for raising them in Committee. I hope that, although I have not been able to cover the full text of the amendments, those two points will be welcome to Opposition Members.

Mrs. Beckett: We thank the Minister for his comments on points raised in Committee about passporting. I think that we also thank him for his remarks about linking;

certainly, six months is a more sensible period. We shall want to examine carefully the implications of what he has said and may return to the matter.
I wish briefly to raise two points. Amendment No. 24 calls for the deletion of paragraph (d) because there are people who fail to satisfy the conditions for retirement pension. I understand that the largest group will be married women whose husbands are still under the age of 65. We would want their claims to be considered at any age. I recognise that the Minister may wish to consider that point carefully.
On amendment No. 90, one point raised in Committee has not really been dealt with tonight. The Minister will appreciate that I was not present during debates in Committee. However, it appears that from the date when the new benefit is introduced any application for NCIP will cease to be valid. Yet there will be people who, from that date, will not be allowed to apply for SDA.
I know that in Committee the Minister referred to administrative problems. The Department does not like the idea of one benefit running alongside another. We have every sympathy with the problems faced by the Department. However, it is quite unjust that certain people will not be allowed to apply for SDA or for NCIP, for which they might qualify. We recognise that the Minister hopes that that will apply only for a couple of years, but that is still too long.
I hope that the Minister will give us an assurance that he will consider amendment No. 90 or some formulation that will have the same effect. Unless he wants to go down in history for the Newton black hole, he would be well advised to do so.

Mr. Newton: With the leave of the House, I shall reply briefly to the points raised.
I certainly have no desire to go down in history for the Newton black hole, or any other hole. I shall consider the point about amendment No. 24 because, quite frankly, we had not realised what the hon. Lady had in mind.
The overt purpose of the amendment is to allow SDA to be payable to people who first become incapable of work after pensionable age. The hon. Lady will understand the problem immediately. The notion of assessing whether someone is capable of work after he has passed retirement age is somewhat odd. It would be farcical to try to assess someone of 95 for capacity for work. However, I shall consider the hon. Lady's remarks.
On amendment No. 90, I think that I made it clear in Committee—which is why I shall not be especially forthcoming now—that I acknowledged that there will be some people—probably a small number of between 1,000 and 2,000 — who may find themselves in the position described by the hon. Lady. If both the old and new benefits ran side by side, quite apart from administrative problems or any technical objections, some people who might qualify for NCIP during the phasing period might not satisfy the conditions for SDA at the end of the period. In other words, they might find themselves being awarded benefit one week, only to have it taken away the next. If, to avoid that, they were given automatic title to severe disablement allowance, they would have an advantage over those who qualified under the new system in the first phase.
Whatever one does, there will be anomalies. That will always be the case unless one introduces a benefit covering everything in one go. It was the sort of problem that the


right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) faced with the mobility allowance. There is no perfect answer, but we believe that what we are doing is the best practicable way forward.

Mr. Alfred Morris: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Newton: I beg to move amendment No. 26, in page 13, line 11, leave out '2A' and insert '2'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It will be convenient to consider at the same time Government amendments Nos. 87, 88 and 89.

Mr. Newton: These are essentially technical amendments to ensure that the new rates of NCIP, which I presume my right hon. Friend will be setting in some uprating statement in the foreseeable future, are smoothly translated into the initial rate of severe disablement allowance from November.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 7

PENSION INCREASE IN RESPECT OF HUSBANDS

Mrs. Beckett: I beg to move amendment No. 27, in page 14, line 19, leave out paragraph (a).
This is designed to allow all women to receive an increase in retirement pension for a dependent husband. Under the clause, women who have previously been in receipt of unemployment or sickness benefit, invalidity pension and so on will be entitled to receive such an increase, but others will not. The clause as drafted will cause anomalies, even if only a few, and a more sensible, equitable and even interpretation of the clause would be to remove paragraph (a).

Dr. Boyson: Whenever one makes a concession, one receives demands a few months later for further concessions to be made. That is not an argument against making concessions, but one must be ready for the pressure that will come three or six months later for more to be done.
In November, for the first time, women who previously received money for their husbands, who were getting sickness or other disability benefits on their own contributions—if they had an addition of between £16 and £19·55 — lost the lot once they came on to retirement. At that time we said that if they were receiving an addition before being in receipt of a retirement pension, they should continue to get the £16 or £19·55 and would, therefore, be better off.
I appreciate why the hon. Lady moved the amendment. However, to accept it would increase the cost 30 times over, and we could not afford that; the difference would be between £0·5 million and £15 million, I must, therefore, resist the amendment. What we did in November at least ensured that nobody was worse off on retirement. I have no doubt that at some time in the future the matters which the hon. Lady has in mind will be discussed.

Mrs. Beckett: In view of the Minister's remarks, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 11

CONSTITUTION OF PANELS FOR SOCIAL SECURITY APPEAL TRIBUNALS

Mrs. Beckett: I beg to move amendment No. 30, in page 17, leave out lines 4 to 11 and insert—


'(a) persons who appear to the President to represent employed earners;
(b) persons who appear to him to represent employers and earners other then employed earners; and
(c) persons who appear to him to have knowledge or experience of conditions in the area and of the problems of living on low incomes.



(2A) Before appointing members of a panel the President may take into consideration any recommendations—

(a) from such local committees representing employers or employed earners or both; or
(b) from such organisations concerned with the interests of employers or employed earners; or
(c) from such voluntary organisations included on the list of lists maintained by the relevant Regional Health Authority or Authorities in accordance with regulations made under section 22(3A) of the National Health Service Act 1977; or
(d) from such other organisations or from such persons as he considers appropriate. '.

I appreciate that the wording of the amendment may not be perfect. However, we are seeking by it to restore some degree of the balance that was established by the measure which last year set up the new tribunals. The Minister said in Committee that there had been agreement between the parties only a year ago about the basis on which the panels should be established and should operate. Then this year in this Bill the Government have sought to change that agreement and to give very wide powers to the president of the tribunal to decide of whom the panel should be constituted, from which bodies he should draw even the people eligible to serve on the panel and so on.
We should like to fetter that discretion to some extent. We accept all the things the Minister said about what a wonderful man and how impartial the president is. Our faith in the impartiality of the legal profession is not always sustained, but we are willing to take the Minister's assurances on this point. Nevertheless, we feel that we should write something into the legislation to show to the president from what groups within society we expect him to draw the people who should serve on tribunals. Over the years the expertise of trade unionists and of the people who represent employed earners has proved of enormous value and they are a necessary element in tribunals. To bring in people who have experience of the problems of low incomes is also a valuable step forward.
We also sought a method of suggesting the sort of voluntary organisations from which the president might seek to draw members. The Minister mentioned in Committee that there was a danger that academic sociologists and people of that nature, against whom he seemed to have a minor grudge, might be the only people put forward. Therefore, we sought to suggest the sort of people to whom the president might look. In this proposal we are trying to restore some of the balance that was in the legislation passed last year. I hope that the Minister will look with favour on the amendment.

Mr. Meadowcroft: One of the great problems is that the appellants and the people who serve on all tribunals have a different understanding of how the tribunals work. The different ways in which people are used to working


are often apparent only when one has to assist someone who is appearing before a tribunal. Anything which would assist in changing the way tribunals work so as to make them less formal and less frightening to those who appear before them and which would reduce the pressure for people always to be represented, even if only by a union official, would be beneficial.

Mr. Newton: May I assure the hon. Lady that I have nothing but sympathy with academic sociologists in view of the amount of American sociological verbiage that they must have to wade through.
The proposed amendment seems to be a valiant effort to do something with which I have a good deal of sympathy, but I do not think that it has quite come off. Subsection (1)(c) is more restrictive than our original formula which includes the phrase:
to be representative of persons living or working in the area.
I do not think that the amendment broadens that provision. Rather it narrows it. I see real difficulties because of the word "and" in the middle. It refers to
persons who . . . have knowledge or experience of conditions in the area and of the problems of living on low incomes.
That could be very restrictive. Therefore, I have drafting worries. There are also technical problems with which I shall not weary the House.
One way and another I am sympathetic to the spirit of what the hon. Lady is trying to bring about, and it corresponds with the spirit of the Government's approach. More to the point, I have little doubt that it corresponds with the spirit in which the president will approach his job, although in no way can I dictate to him what he should do.
Even though I cannot accept the amendment in the form in which it stands, I think it would be appropriate for me to bring to the attention of the president of the appeal tribunals what the hon. Lady has proposed, and the remarks that she and I have made, as reflecting a widespread view in the House and something which he may care to take into account. At the same time I shall consider further the drafting that the hon. Lady has put before us without a commitment to further action but because I am genuinely sympathetic to the spirit of her approach.

Mrs. Beckett: I thank the Minister for those remarks and remind him that I began by saying that we wished to fetter to some degree the very wide discretion that he is giving to the president. In that sense he is correct in saying that the part of the amendment to which he referred is intended to be more restrictive.
When we debated the matter in Committee we heard that in an area with only small pockets of people dependent on supplementary benefit persons may serve on the committee who have not the smallest acquaintance with the problem of living on a low income.
I am concerned to hear it suggested that the people who serve on the panels may not receive primary material, but may be given filtered advice. I am sure that the Minister, who has been in office for a considerable period, will share my conviction that there is no substitute for primary material and seeing it for oneself. If the problem is of cost or administration, I hope that the Minister will ask the president to examine the matter carefully.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 12

LATE PAID CLASS 2 CONTRIBUTIONS

Amendment made: No. 31, in page 17, line 17, leave out 'the' and insert 'a'—[Mr. Newton.]

Clause 14

TRANSFER OF ACCRUED RIGHTS AND ENTITLEMENT TO BENEFITS UNDER OCCUPATIONAL PENSION SCHEMES

Dr. Boyson: I beg to move amendment No. 32, in page 19, line 30, at end insert 'and conditions subject to which'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 33 to 39.

Dr. Boyson: These are technical amendments, which do not change the substance of the Bill in any way.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments made: No. 33, in page 19, line 32, after 'a', insert 'contracted-out'.
No. 34, in page 19, line 36, leave out from 'another' to end of line 38, and insert 'occupational pension scheme'.
No. 35, in page 19, line 38, at end insert—
'(1A) Any such regulations may be made so as to apply to earners who are not in employment at the time of the transfer.'.
No. 36, in page 20, line 2, leave out from first 'to' 'unless' in line 3 and insert 'transfers whenever made'.
No. 37, in page 20, line 5, leave out 'took' and insert 'take'.
No. 38, in page 20, line 5., at end insert—
'() The power conferred by subsection (1) above is without prejudice to the generality of section 166(2) of the principal Act.".'.
No. 39, in page 20, line 5, at end insert—
'(2) In section 44 of that Act (premium on termination of contracted-out scheme)—
(a) the following subsections shall be inserted after subsection (1)—
"(1A) Regulations may provide that any provision of this Part of this Act shall have effect, where the Occupational Pensions Board have approved arrangements under subsection (1) above, subject to such modifications as may be specified in the regulations.(1B) Any such regulations shall have effect in relation to arrangements whenever approved, unless they provide that they are only to have effect in relation to arrangements approved after they come into force.'; and
(b) the following subsection shall be inserted after subsection (9)—
"(10) Any reference to earners in this section includes, in relation to any particular time, not only a reference to earners who are in employment at that time but also a reference to earners who are not in employment at that time but who have been in employment before it or will be in employment after it.".'.

—[Dr. Boyson]

Clause 17

REGULATIONS

Mrs. Beckett: I beg to move amendment No. 40, in page 20, line 15 leave out paragraph (a).

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:
No. 41, in page 20, line 17 at end insert
'other than regulations made under section 36(7)(c)(ii)'.
No. 42, in page 20, line 18, leave out paragraph (b).
No. 43, in page 20, line 25, leave out paragraph (c).
No. 44, in page 20, line 30, leave out paragraph (d).
No. 45, in page 20, line 33, leave out paragraph (e).
No. 46, in page 20, line 40, leave out paragraph (f).
No. 47, in page 21, line 1, leave out paragraph (g).
No. 48, in page 21, line 5, leave out paragraph (h).
No. 49, in page 21, line 9, leave out paragraph (j).
No. 50, in page 21, line 11, leave out paragraph (k).
No. 51, in page 21, line 16, leave out paragraph (l).
No. 52, in page 21, line 20, leave out paragraph (m).
No. 53, in page 21, line 25, leave out paragraph (n).
No. 54, in page 21, line 29, leave out paragraph (o).

Mrs. Beckett: We are trying to persuade the Minister to do what we failed to get him to do in Committee—to justify why the various regulations should not be sent to the Social Security Advisory Committee.
Amendment No. 40 deals with an exception to which we attach great weight. The regulations refer to full-time education—a difficult and complex matter about which there is much disagreement and confusion. We should be very unhappy if regulations about that were drawn up without reference to the Committee.
I recognise that sometimes regulations drafted after legislation do not have to go to such Committees. It is well within the Committee's remit to decide that regulations drafted under the Bill carry out the intentions of the Bill. The difference is that the Committee will make the decision, rather than the Secretary of State.
I am sure that the Minister will seek to assure the House that the amendments are unnecessary, but I hope that he will accept that in view of the many amendments to the Bill made by the Government and the substantial additions to the clause that we are discussing, there is cause for concern. I hope that he will consider whether more of the regulations should go to the committee.

Dr. Boyson: The direct answer is that amendments came to light because of continual consultation. The Occupational Pensions Board and the Social Security Advisory Committee were aware of the provisions in the Bill and passed material to us. The custom of Governments of all colours has been that consultations take place before introducing a Social Security Bill. This Bill provides that for six months after the legislation comes into operation, regulations should not go automatically to the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council, the Social Security Advisory Committee, or to the Occupational Pensions Board because they have already been debated and cleared. I shall check on the consultation on the subject to which amendment No. 41 refers.
This pattern has been followed for some time, and I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to oppose the amendments, because they could only slow the coming into operation of the Bill. I know that the hon. Lady and the House share the view that franking should be stopped as soon as possible, but if we put this matter out for consultation again, it would only slow matters.

Mrs. Beckett: The Minister is on dodgy ground in both his remarks. He said that we had seen evidence of consultation. In two sections of the Bill we have seen

evidence of changes being made in the law to bring into effect what everyone had thought was the law, in one case for two years, and in another for several years before that. The Minister mentioned franking and the matters emanating from the Occupational Pensions Board. Again, we have seen evidence that after the Government introduced the Bill, an extremely large new clause and amendments were moved at the end of the Committee stage. Now we have further amendments. It is evidence of sustained consultation; it is also evidence that that consultation should not be brought abruptly to an end, because many changes are needed in the Bill.
On franking, the Minister is on weak ground because,as he will recall, we agreed that it was unnecessary to have legislation. It is just that the pension companies are behaving disgracefully and will not stop until the Government make them. Here again, the timing of the Bill is unimportant. However, I am grateful to the Minister for agreeing to reconsider amendment No. 41.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments made:
No. 55, in page 21, line 37, after 'above', insert 'or subsection (4) below'.
No. 56, in page 21, line 45, leave out from 'to' to end of page 22, line 4, and insert
'regulations—

(a) made under section 38 or 44(1A) or (1B) of the Social Security Pensions Act 1975 before the expiry of the period of six months beginning with the commencement of section 14 above;
(b) made under any enactment before the expiry of the period of six months beginning with the commencement of section 14 above and contained in a statutory instrument which states that it contains only provisions consequential on that section or such provisions and regulations made under section 38 or 44(1A) or (1B) of the Social Security Pensions Act 1975;
(c) made under section 41C or 41E of that Act before the expiry of the period of six months beginning with the commencement of Schedule 5 to this Act; or
(d) made under any enactment before the expiry of the period of six months beginning with the commencement of that Schedule and contained in a statutory instrument which states that it contains only provisions consequential on that Schedule or such provisions and regulations made under section 41C or 41E of the Social Security Pensions Act 1975'.—[Mr. Kenneth Clarke.]

Clause 18

POWER TO MAKE PROVISION FOR NORTHERN IRELAND

Amendment made: No. 28, in page 22, line 5, leave out clause 18.—[Mr. Donald Thompson.]

Clause 21

EXTENT

Amendments made: No. 57, in page 22, line 33, leave out 'and (2)' and insert ', (2) and (4)'.
No. 58, in page 22, line 37, at end insert
'section [Holidays for patients etc.] (1);'.
No. 59, in page 23, line 5, at end insert
'section [Holidays for patients etc.] (2);'.
No. 60, in page 23, line 7, leave out from beginning to 'to' in line 11 and insert—
'(3) Section [Northern Ireland] above extends'.
No. 61, in page 23, line 12, at end insert—
'section [Increase in borrowing powers of General Practice Finance Corporation]'.


No. 62, in page 23, line 23, at end insert
'section [Fitting etc. of contact lenses]'.
No. 63, in page 23, line 23, at end insert 'section [Use of titles];'.
No. 64, in page 23, line 23, at end insert
'section [Disciplinary provisions]) and Schedule [Disciplinary provisions]; '.—[Mr. Newton.]

Clause 22

COMMENCEMENT

Amendments made: No. 65, in page 23, line 36, at end insert 'section 3(4);'.
No. 66, in page 23, line 37, leave out 'and (5)'.
No. 67, in page 23, line 37, at end insert
'section [Holidays for patients etc.];'.
No. 68, in page 23, line 41, after '6', insert 'or 7A'.
No. 69, in page 23, line 42, leave out 'to' and insert 'and'.
No. 70, in page 23, line 42, at end insert 'section [Northern Ireland];'.
No. 71, in page 24, line 5, at end insert—
'section [Increase in borrowing powers of General Practice Finance Corporation]' .—[Mr. Kenneth Clarke.]

Clause 23

TRANSITIONAL

Mr. Deputy Speaker: We now come to amendment No. 72. Mrs. Jill Knight.

Mrs. Jill Knight: I beg to move—[HON. MEMBERS: "Formally."] I am very sorry, but it is impossible to move this amendment formally. However, I shall move it with as much brevity as I can manage, hoping that the Hansard reporters can cope with the speed at which I speak.
I beg to move amendment No. 72, in page 24, leave out lines 19 to 30.
I am not sure that the Government know what they are doing in lines 19 to 30 of clause 23, and I advise them strongly to consider deleting them, as the amendment suggests. It is wrong to allow non-opticians to do general ophthalmic services dispensing because it is likely to prove contrary to public interests. However, the Government have decided to permit this and have been deaf to warnings.
That being so, do the Government intend that these unqualified dispensers will be placed in the same contractual position with the FPCs as the registered opticians? That is what the words would seem to mean.
How will the public be given access to the NHS complaints procedure against unqualified dispensers? Do the Government intend that only qualified dispensers will continue to be subject to the NHS complaints procedures while the unregistered ones, operating under the new arrangements, will have no sanctions? The provision in clause 23 deals with transitional arrangements made under the Bill. It is wrong to introduce this unnecessary complication into the FPC and NHS procedures. It will be expensive and we are always conscious of how necessary it is not to waste money. It will probably be overtaken by events because NHS dispensing, as we know it, will continue for a short time only.
NHS dispensing by qualified people subject to regulations provides an adequate service for the public. This issue is not related to price competition. While NHS

dispensing remains, price control will remain whoever does the dispensing. The rationale that the Government are applying to allow non-NHS dispensing to be attempted by the unqualified to increase price competition and freedom of choice cannot and does not apply to the NHS while it exists in its present form.
The FPCs are extremely worried about this proposal. I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will listen to them. They feel that it is wrong to include lay people in a register of professional people. The FPCs will have to deal with lay people under what is a professional service commitment arrangement. This proposal may not be as important as most of the matters in the Bill, but it worries the FPCs. Will my right hon. and learned Friend please consider it?

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I am sorry to disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Egbaston (Mrs. Knight) yet again. It is only on this issue that we disagree so persistently. The Government have taken the view, for all the reasons I gave before without satisfying my hon. Friend, that it is in the public interest to open the provision of spectacles for dispensing, after a recent prescription, to unregistered people.
It would not be illogical for the Government to allow non-registered opticians to dispense private spectacles but reserve the dispensing of general optical service spectacles to those who are registered and qualified.
It may well be, as my hon. Friend says, that this will only be a transitional change, because the Bill is drafted on the basis that as soon as the market has stabilised we will go over to some kind of grant to people on low incomes who, at the moment, qualify for free spectacles or reduction of charges, and to children, to enable them to buy reasonably priced spectacles but to retain the choice of frames and lenses that I was describing earlier.
At this stage we have no idea how short that transitional period will be. We are therefore taking the power to ensure that if it turns out to be anything other than short, as my hon. Friend says, we will enable the non-registered to provide GOS spectacles to those patients and consumers who want to obtain their spectacles from those suppliers in the same way as they obtain them at the moment from those who are already under contract.
It is our intention that if non-registered people are admitted to the GOS, the contractual arrangements between them and the FPCs will be the same as for the present contractors. In so far as there are complaints to the FPCs and discipline procedures, they tend to revolve around the terms of the contract between the contractor and the FPC.
2.30 am
If the terms are identical for the non-registered people, they will be subject to the same complaints procedure and the same liability to penalties to which we are accustomed at the moment. Perhaps there is a difficulty that so far has escaped the Government in putting the Bill in its present form, but it is reasonable to anticipate that non-registered opticians will enter into contract with the FPCs in the same way in which we contract at the moment with other dispensing opticians.
I shall consider what my hon. Friend said, but at this stage I do not feel that anyone can demonstrate the difficulties. The logic of the Government's position drives us to defend the Bill as it stands. The difficulty is that my hon. Friend and I are both being consistent. With her view,


she is bound to press the amendment. With the Government's policy, we are bound to resist it. That all goes back to our earlier differences of principle. I hope that she will accept that, although no doubt this part of the Bill does not please her any more than the rest of it, at least we are maintaining the same line of argument, and I hope that she understands why we are resisting amendment No. 72.

Mrs. Jill Knight: The Minister slightly misunderstands what I am trying to suggest. I completely accept that the House has given its blessing to his intention in relation to dispensing, but I am saying that one cannot put non-registered people on all fours with the fully professional personnel because one will not even know where they are. There is no register or licensing of them. They might be here, there or everywhere. That is the matter that concerns the FPCs. I do not intend to press the amendment to a Division because it is obvious that I could not win, but I beg my right hon. and learned Friend to appreciate that the FPCs' views on those matters are worthy of consideration.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I shall consider carefully the views of the FPCs. One would know where those people were if they entered into a contract with an FPC. I accept that no FPC will be obliged to enter into a contract with a chap working from a barrow, but if someone develops a practice of the sort described by my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman), which includes some non-registered opticians working in the practice, I do not see why it should not be open for them to enter into a contract with an FPC in the same way as dispensing opticians do now. However, I shall reflect on what my hon. Friend has said, and will continue to consider what she and some FPCs say.

Mrs. Jill Knight: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule 1

OPTICAL APPLIANCES

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I beg to move amendment No. 73, in page 25, line 32, at end insert—
'(aa) for a person whose resources fall to be treated under the regulations as being less than his requirements;'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments:
No. 74, in page 25, line 32, at end insert—
'(aa) a person liable to be detained under the Mental Health Act 1983 or received into guardianship under that Act; or'.
Government amendments Nos. 75, 76 and 77.

Mr. Clarke: Government amendment No. 73 honours a commitment that we made in Committee. Amendment No. 75 is a technical drafting amendment.

Mr. Meadowcroft: Amendment No. 74 endeavours to tidy up a point, which should be considered, that some of those liable to be detained under the Mental Health Act 1983 or received into guardianship under that Act are either unable to go out to visit an optician or are in a similar

legal position to a child. Therefore, it seemed appropriate and fair that the Government should retain the duty to meet their needs.

Mr. Clarke: Hospital inpatients, including those detained against their will in mental hospitals, will continue to get free glasses when the Bill is enacted. I am happy to clear up that point. The amendments are necessary to remove any obscurity.
Those placed under the guardianship of local authorities do not get free glasses on that ground alone. They never have, and will get free glasses only if, as in most cases, they are children or qualify on low-income grounds. There are a few other cases in which they will not get free glasses. They are exceptional, and I do not think that they should bother the hon. Gentleman. I hope that I have answered his main query to his satisfaction.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments made: No. 75, in page 25, line 38, at end insert—
'(2A) Regulations under this paragraph may direct how a person's resources and requirements are to be calculated and, without prejudice to the generality of this subparagraph, may direct that they shall be calculated

(a) by reference—

(i) to any enactment; or
(ii) to the person's being or having been entitled to payments under any enactment,

either as it has effect at the time when the regulations are made or as amended subsequently; or
(b) by reference to a scale or an index or to any other data either in the form current when the regulations are made or in any subsequent form attributable to amendment or revision taking effect after that time or to any other cause.'.

No. 76, in page 27, line 4, at end insert
'(aa) for a person whose resources fall to be treated under the regulations as being less than his requirements;'.
No. 77, in page 27, line 10, at end insert—
'(2A) Regulations under this paragraph may direct how a person's resources and requirements are to be calculated and, without prejudice to the generality of this sub-paragraph, may direct that they shall be calculated—

(a) by reference—

(i) to any enactment; or
(ii) to the person's being or having been entitled to payments under any enactment,

either as it has effect at the time when the regulations are made or as amended subsequently; or
(b) by reference to a scale or an index or to any other data either in the form current when the regulations are made or in any subsequent form attributable to amendment or revision taking effect after that time or to any other cause.'.—[Mr. Kenneth Clarke.]

Schedule 2

FAMILY PRACTITIONER COMMITTEES

Amendments made:

No. 78, in page 29, line 22, leave out 'or further allotted'.

No. 84, in page 31, line 39, at end insert—
'(4A) No person—

(a) shall be nominated for appointment to a Family Practitioner Committee under sub-paragraph (3)(f) or (g) above or sub-paragraph (4) above; or
(b) shall be appointed to such a Committee under sub-paragraph (3)(f),(g) or (h) above,

if he is—

(i) a medical practitioner;
(ii) a dental practitioner;
(iii) an ophthalmic optician;
(iv) a dispensing optician;
(v) a registered pharmacist; or


(vi) a person conducting a business providing any service for the purposes of Part II of this Act.'.—[Mr. Kenneth Clarke.]

Schedule 3

SEVERE DISABLEMENT ALLOWANCE

Amendments made: No. 87, in page 34, line 17, leave out second 'and'.

No. 88, in page 34, line 18, at end insert

'and paragraph 2 of Part III of Schedule 4 and paragraph 9 of Part IV of that Schedule'.

No. 89, in page 35, line 11, leave out paragraphs 10 and 11.—[Mr. Kenneth Clarke.]

Schedule 5

PROTECTION OF PENSIONS

Amendments made: No. 93, in page 41, line 20, after 'date', insert

'by reason of employment after that date'.

No. 94, in page 41, line 27, leave out 'that day' and insert

'the day after the termination of employment date'.

No. 95, in page 41, line 38, at end insert

'or

(ii) where no short service benefit has then accrued to him, any other benefit to which this paragraph applies and which has then accrued to him.

(3A) The benefit other than short service benefit to which subsection (3)(b) above applies is benefit—

(a) which would have been provided as either the whole or part of the earner's short service benefit; or
(b) of which the earner's short service benefit would have formed part,

if paragraph 6(1) of Schedule 16 to the Social Security Act 1973 had effect with the substitution—

(i) in paragraph (a), of a reference to the earner's age on the termination of employment date (as defined in subsection (1)(a)(i) above) for the reference to the age of 26; and
(ii) in paragraph (b), of a reference to the service which the earner had on that date for the reference to 5 years' qualifying service.

(3B) Any such benefit is only to be included in the relevant sum to the extent that it does not exceed the amount which the scheme would have had to provide as short service benefit in paragraph 6(1) of Schedule 16 to the Social Security Act 1973 had effect as mentioned in subsection (3A) above.'.

No. 96, in page 42, line 9, after 'service', insert 'or other'.

No. 97, in page 42, line 12, at end insert—

'(6A) An earner shall be treated for the purposes of this section as if benefit under a scheme had accrued to him—

 (a) if—

(i) one of the events mentioned in subsection (6) above occurs before he has attained the age at which, if he had attained it, that benefit would have accrued to him; and
(ii) he continues to be in employment to which the scheme applies until he attains that age; or


(b) if—

(i) one of those events occurs before he has a particular period of service; and
(ii) that benefit would have accrued to him if he had that period; and
(iii) he continues to be in employment to which the scheme applies until he has it.'.

No. 98, in page 42, line 32, after 'her', insert 'at that time'.

No. 99, in page 42, line 34, leave out 'and'.

No. 100, in page 42, line 35, at end insert

'and
(iii) any amount which is an appropriate addition at that time.
(1A) In subsection (1) above "appropriate addition' means—

(a) where a scheme provides that part of a widow's pension shall accrue after the termination of employment date by reason of the earner's employment after that date, an amount equal to the part which has so accrued; and
(b) where a scheme provides that a widow's pension which has accrued before that date shall be enhanced after it if payment of the earner's pension is postponed, the amount by which the excess of the widow's pension on the day after the temiination of employment date over one half of the earner's guaranteed minimum on the day after the termination of employment date has been enhanced by reason of the postponement.'

No. 101, in page 43, line 41, at end insert—

'(8) In subsection (7) above "modification" includes, without prejudice to the generality of that subsection, addition, omission and amendment.'.—[Mr. Kenneth Clarke.]

Schedule 6

MISCELLANEOUS SOCIAL SECURITY AMENDMENTS

Amendments made: No. 102, in page 45, line 40, at end insert—

'7(A) The following section shall be inserted after section 23 of that Act—

"Deductions from statutory sick pay

23A.—(1) It is hereby declared for the avoidance of doubt that an agreement between an employer and an employee authorising any deductions from any statutory sick pay which the employer is liable to pay the employee in respect of any period shall not be void by reason only of section 1(2)(a) of this Act if the employer—

(a) is authorised by that or another agreement to make the same deductions from any contractural remuneration which he is liable to pay in respect of the same period; or
(b) would be so authorised if he were liable to pay contractual remuneration in respect of that period.

(2) The Truck Act 1896 shall apply in relation to an agreement between an employer and a workman (within the meaning of that Act) for the deduction of any amount from statutory sick pay as it applies to a contract for any deduction from the sum contracted to be paid by an employer to a workman; and, accordingly, any reference in that Act to such a contract shall include a reference to such an agreement and any reference to the sum contracted to be paid shall include a reference to a payment of statutory sick pay.".'.—[Mr. Kenneth Clarke.]

Schedule 7

REPEALS

Amendments made: No. 103, in page 47, line 5, at end insert—

'6 &amp; 7 Eliz. 2 Opticians Act 1958. c.32.
In section 13(3), the words from "and" on-ward.'.

No. 104, in page 47, line 38, column 3, at end insert—

'In section 97(1)(a) and (c) and (2), the words "or further allotted".'.

No. 105, in page 47, line 55, leave out '(1)(e) and sub-paragraph (5)' and insert

'(3)(e), sub-paragraph (4A)(iv) and sub-paragraph (7)'.

No. 106, in page 48, line 51, column 3, at end insert—

'In section 85(1), the words "or further allotted".'.

No. 107, in page 49, line 11, column 3, at end insert—

'Section 18.' —



[Mr. Kenneth Clarke.]

New Schedule

'DISCIPLINARY PROVISIONS

PART I

NEW SECTIONS

1. The following sections shall be inserted after section 10 of the Opticians Act 1958—

"Disciplinary orders
10A. In this Act—
'disciplinary order' means—

(a) an erasure order;
(b) a suspension order;
(c) a penalty order;

'erasure order' means—

(a) in relation to a registered optician, an order that his name shall be erased from the register; and
(b) in relation to an enrolled body corporate, an order that its name shall be erased from the list in which it is enrolled;

'suspension order' means—

(a) in relation to a registered optician, an order that his registration shall be suspended for a period specified in the other; and
(b) in relation to an enrolled body corporate, an order that its enrolment in the list in which it is enrolled shall be suspended for a period specified in the order; and

'penalty order' means an order that a registered optician or an enrolled body corporate shall pay to the General Optical Council a sum specified in the order.

Suspension orders

10B.—(1) The period specified in a suspension order shall not exceed twelve months.
(2) While the registration of a person in the register is suspended by virtue of a suspension order he shall be treated as not being registered, notwithstanding that his name still appears in the register.
(3) While the enrolment of a body corporate is suspended by virtue of a suspension order it shall be treated as not being enrolled, notwithstanding that its name still appears in the list.
(4) Where a suspension order is made against a person or body corporate the registrar shall make in the register or list a note of that fact and of the period for which the registration or enrolment is to be suspended; and the registrar shall erase the note at such time as the order for any reason ceases to have effect.

Penalty orders

10C.—(1) A penalty order may specify any sum not exceeding the maximum penalty.
(2) In this section 'the maximum penalty' means £1,000 or such sum as is for the time being substituted in this definition by an order in force under subsection (3) below.
(3) If it appears to the Privy Council that there has been a change in the value of money since the last occasion when the maximum penalty was fixed, whether by the corning into force of this section, or by order under this section, the Privy Council may by order substitute for the sum specified in subsection (2) above such other sum as appears to them justified by the change.
(4) An order under subsection (3) above—

(a) shall be made by statutory instrument subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament; and

(b) shall not affect the punishment for an offence committed before that order comes into force.

(5) A penalty order shall specify a period within which the sum specified in it is to be paid.
(6) The General Optical Council may recover the sum specified in a penalty order from the person or body against whom the order was made if that person or body does not pay it within the period specified in the order.
(7) The General Optical Council shall pay a sum under a penalty order or recovered under subsection (6) above into the Consolidated Fund".
2. The following section shall be substituted for section 11 —

"Powers of Disciplinary Committee

11.—(1) If any registered optician—

(a) is convicted by any court in the United Kingdom of any criminal offence; or
(b) is judged by the Disciplinary Committee to have been guilty of serious professional misconduct,

the Committee may make a disciplinary order against him.
(2) If—

(a) an enrolled body corporate is convicted of an offence under this Act, or of aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring the commission of, or inciting another person to commit, such an offence; or
(b) in the case of a body corporate which is for the time being enrolled by virtue of paragraph (a), (c) or (d) of subsection (2) of section four of this Act, the Disciplinary Committee is of the opinion that the condition, or any of the conditions, for the enrolment of the body corporate under that subsection is no longer satisfied,

the Committee may make a disciplinary order against that body corporate.
(3) Where a registered optician dies while he is either a director of an enrolled body corporate or the manager of that part of the business of an enrolled body corporate which consists of the testing of sight or the fitting and supply of optical appliances, he shall be deemed, for the purposes of subsection (2) of this section, to have continued to be a director of that body or a manager of that part of its business, as the case may be, until the expiration of the three months beginning with the date of his death or until a director or manager is appointed in his place, whichever occurs first.
(4) If it appears to the Disciplinary Committee that a registered optician or an enrolled body corporate—

(a) has contravened or failed to comply with any rules made under section twenty-five of this Act; or
(b) has failed to pay the sum specified in a penalty order within the period there specified,

the Committee may make a disciplinary order against the optician or body corporate.
(5) If it appears to the Disiplinary Committee that—

(a) a registered optician or enrolled body corporate is engaged in the fitting and supply of optical appliances; and
(b) that the arrangements made by the optician or body corporate for carrying on his practice or his or its business are not such as to secure that the fitting and supply of optical appliances in the course of that practice or business are carried out by, or under the supervision of, an opthalmic optician registered in the register of ophthalmic opticians engaged or proposing to engage both in the testing of sight and in the fitting and supply of optical appliances or a registered dispensing optician,

the Committee may make a disciplinary order against that optician or body corporate.
(6) Where—

(a) a disciplinary order is made against a director of an enrolled body corporate; or


(b) a responsible officer of an enrolled body corporate is convicted of an offence under this Act; or
(c) a disciplinary order is made against a registered optician employed by an enrolled body corporate and the act or omission constituting the ground on which the order was made was instigated or connived at by a responsible officer of the body corporate, or, if the act or omission was a continuing act or omission, a responsible officer of the body corporate had or reasonably ought to have had knowledge of its continuance,

the Disciplinary Committee may make a disciplinary order against the body corporate.
(7) In a case—

(a) where—

(i) an enrolled body corporate is convicted of an offence under this Act; and
(ii) the offence was instigated or connived at by a responsible officer of the body corporate, or, if the offence was a continuing offence, a responsible officer of the body corporate had or reasonably ought to have had knowledge of its continuance; or

(b) where—

(i) a disciplinary order is made against an enrolled body corporate; and
(ii) the act or omission constituting the ground on which the order was made was instigated or connived at by a responsible officer of the body corporate, or, if the act or omission was a continuing act or omission, a responsible officer of the body corporate had or reasonably ought to have had knowledge of its continuance,

the Disciplinary Committee may, if the responsible officer is a registered optician, make a disciplinary order against him.
(8) The Disciplinary Committee shall not take a case into consideration during any period within which proceedings by way of of appeal may be brought which may result in subsection (6) or (7) of this section being rendered inapplicable in that case or while any such proceedings are pending.
(9) Where it appears to the Disciplinary Committee—

(a) that a body corporate which carries on business as an ophthalmic or dispensing optician at more than one set of premises is liable to have a disciplinary order made against it; and
(b) that the events giving rise to the liability were confined, or substantially confined, to a particular set of premises,

the Committee may, instead of making a disciplinary order against the body corporate, direct that the body corporate shall not use the title of optician, ophthalmic optician, dispensing optician, registered optician, enrolled optician or optometrist in connection with that set of premises; and if at any time thereafter it appears to the Committee that the body corporate has contravened a direction in force under this subsection, the Committee may make a disciplinary order against the body corporate.
(10) A direction under subsection (9) of this section shall remain in force until revoked on an application made to them in that behalf, by the Disciplinary Committee.
(11) When the Disciplinary Committee—

(a) make a disciplinary order against an individual or body corporate; or
(b) direct that a body corporate shall not use any of the titles specified in subsection (9) of this section in connection with a set of premises,

the registrar shall serve on that individual or body a notification of the order or direction.
(12) Any power conferred by this section to make a disciplinary order is a power to make—

(a) an erasure order;
(b) a suspension order;

(c)a penalty order; or
(d)an erasure order or suspension order together with a penalty order.

(13) In this Act 'responsible officer' means any director, manager, secretary or other similar officer of a bcdy corporate, or of a branch or department of a body corporate, or any person purporting to act in any such capacity.".'.

PART II

MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS

3. The Opticians Act 1958 shall also have effect subject to the amendments specified in the following paragraphs of this Schedule.
4. In subsection (1) of section 9 (preliminary investigations) for the words from "his" to "eleven" there shall be substituted the words "made against him or it a disciplinary order or an order under section thirteen".
5. — (1) In subsection (1) of section 12 of that Act (restoration to register) for the words from "the name" to "direction" there shall be substituted the words "an erasure order has been made against an individual or body corporate".
(2) In subsection (2)(b) of that section, after the word "of" there shall be inserted the words "the Committee's decision on".

6. The following section shall be inserted after section 13—
"Service of notifications

13A. — (1) A notification under section 11 or 13 above which is required to be served on a person may be served by being delivered personally, or being sent by post in a registered letter or by the recorded delivery service.

(2) For the purposes of this section, and of section 7 of the Interpretation Act 1978 (which defines 'service by post') in its application to this section, a letter to a person other than a body corporate containing such a notification shall be deemed to be properly addressed if it is addressed to him at his address in the register or at his last known address if that address differs from his address in the register and it appears to the registrar that the notification is more likely to reach him at his last known address.
(3) A notification which is required to be served on a body corporate shall be duly served if it is served on the secretary or clerk of that body.
(4) For the purposes of this section, and of section 7 of the Interpretion Act 1978 in its application to this section, the proper address of a person, in the case of a body corporate or the secretary or clerk of a body corporate, shall be its address in the list or the address of its registered or principal office if that address differs from its address in the list and it appears to the registrar that the notification is more likely to reach the body corporate or its secretary or clerk there".

7. —(1) In subsection (1) of section 14 (appeals) for the words from "that", in the first place where it occurs, to "premises" there shall be substituted the words "in relation to an individual or body corporate under section 11 or 13 of this Act".
(2) In subsection (3) of that section, for the words from the beginning to "the", in the first place where it occurs, there shall be substituted the words "Where no appeal is brought against—

(a) a disciplinary order; or
(b) a direction under subsection (9) of section eleven of this Act; or
(c) a direction under section thirteen of this Act,
or where such an appeal is brought but withdrawn or struck out for want of prosecution, the order or".
(3) In subsection (4) of that section, for the words "direction under either of those sections, the direction" there shall be substituted the words "any such order or direction, it".
8. In subsection (2) of section 15 (procedure)—

(a) in paragraph (a), for the words "his or its name erased from the register or list" there shall be substituted the words "a disciplinary order or a direction under section thirteen of his Act made against him or it";
(b) in paragraph (e), for the words "infamous conduct in a professional respect" there shall be substituted the words "serious professional misconduct"; and
(c) in paragraph (f), for the words "his" to "(4)" there shall be substituted the words "a disciplinary order made against him or it under subsection (4) or (5)"; and
(d) in the proviso, for "(6)" there shall be substituted "(9)".



9. In subsection (3) of section 23 (death or bankruptcy of registered optician) for the words "any direction that the name of a body corporate shall be erased from the list" there shall be substituted the words "a disciplinary order".
10. In section 24 (offences by bodies corporate) for the words from "director" to "capacity" there shall be substituted the words "responsible officer of the body corporate".
11. In subsection (1) of section 27 (expenses and accounts of General Optical Council) after the word "money", there shall be inserted the words ", other than a sum paid under a penalty order or recovered under section 10C(6) above,.
12. In subsection (1) of section 29 (powers of Privy Council) for the words "directions to erase names from the register or list" there shall be substituted the words "disciplinary orders or directions under section 13 above".
13. In subsection (1) of section 30—
(a) the following definition shall be inserted after the definition of "disciplinary case"—
"'disciplinary order' has the meaning assigned to it by section 10A of this Act;";
(b) the following definition shall be inserted after the definition of "enrolled"—
"'erasure order' has the meaning assigned to it by section 10A of this Act;";
(c) the following definition shall be inserted after the definition of "optical appliance"—
"'penalty order' has the meaning assigned to it by section 10A of this Act;"; and
(d) the following definitions shall be inserted after the definition of "registered dispensing optician"—
"'responsible officer' has the meaning assigned to it by subsection (13) of section 11 of this Act;
'suspension order' has the meaning assigned to it by section 10A of this Act.".'.

[Mr. Kenneth Clarke.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

Title

Amendments made: No. 110, in line 1, leave out from '1958' to 'to' in line 3.

No. 111, in Title, line 6, leave out

'and finance in the National Health Service'

and insert

'finance in the National Health Service and certain functions of the Secretary of State' .—[Mr. Kenneth Clarke.]

Order for Third Reading read.

[Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

Mr. Meadowcroft: I do not wish to detain the House. Those who have taken part in the debate today should not be inhibited by the fact that the usual channels and the Government managers could not arrange that such an important debate on such an important Bill should take place on a day and at a time when it could be discussed properly. The Third Reading should not be taking place at 2.35 am.
When the Secretary of State first informed the House about the main content of the legislation — the provisions relating to opticians and optical services—our instinct was to be more sympathetic towards it than in the event we were able to be. When the Second Reading took place, it seemed on balance to me and my colleagues that we should oppose it. And as the debate today has progressed, we have come closer and closer to the view that the whole basis of the optical service provisions is wrong. On those grounds as well as because many of us

are unhappy about some of the social security provisions because splitting off the FPCs and making them free-standing is unacceptable to us, I shall decline to give the Bill a Third reading.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—

The House divided: Ayes 118, Noes 20.

Division No. 276]
[2.36 am


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Maude, Hon Francis


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Mayhew, Sir Patrick


Amess, David
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Ashby, David
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)
Mills, lain (Meriden)


Batiste, Spencer
Mitchell, David (NW Hants)


Bellingham, Henry
Moynihan, Hon C.


Bendall, Vivian
Murphy, Christopher


Benyon, William
Newton, Tony


Berry, Sir Anthony
Nicholls, Patrick


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Norris, Steven


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Osborn, Sir John


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Ottaway, Richard


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


Bright, Graham
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Brinton, Tim
Powell, William (Corby)


Brooke, Hon Peter
Powley, John


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Proctor, K. Harvey


Burt, Alistair
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Butterfill, John
Robinson, Mark (N'port W)


Chapman, Sydney
Rowe, Andrew


Chope, Christopher
Sackville, Hon Thomas


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Colvin, Michael
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Conway, Derek
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Coombs, Simon
Sims, Roger


Cope, John
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Couchman, James
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Cranborne, Viscount
Speed, Keith


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Speller, Tony


Dorrell, Stephen
Spencer, Derek


Dover, Den
Squire, Robin


Dunn, Robert
Stanbrook, Ivor


Evennett, David
Stern, Michael


Fallon, Michael
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Forth, Eric
Stevens, Martin (Fulham)


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Gale, Roger
Stradling Thomas, J.


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Goodlad, Alastair
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Grant, Sir Anthony
Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)


Gummer, John Selwyn
Thurnham, Peter


Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Tracey, Richard


Hayhoe, Barney
Twinn, Dr Ian


Hickmet, Richard
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Holt, Richard
Viggers, Peter


Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Jackson, Robert
Walden, George


Lester, Jim
Waller, Gary


Lilley, Peter
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Lloyd, Ian (Havant)
Wheeler, John


Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)
Whitfield, John


Lord, Michael
Wilkinson, John


Lyell, Nicholas
Wolfson, Mark


Macfarlane, Neil
Wood, Timothy


MacGregor, John
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Maclean, David John



Major, John
Tellers for the Ayes:


Malins, Humfrey
Mr. Douglas Hogg and


Mather, Carol
Mr. Michael Neubert.




NOES


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Corbyn, Jeremy


Bermingham, Gerald
Dobson, Frank


Bruce, Malcolm
Harman, Ms Harriet


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)
Kennedy, Charles






Kirkwood, Archibald
Skinner, Dennis


Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)
Wallace, James


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Williams, Rt Hon A.


Meacher, Michael



Meadowcroft, Michael
Tellers for the Noes:


Nellist, David
Mr. Frank Haynes and


Pike, Peter
Mr. Norman Hogg.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read the Third time and passed.

House of Commons (Services)

The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): I beg to move,
That this House approves the First Report from the Select Committee on House of Commons (Services), Session 1983–84, House of Commons Paper No 142: House and Parliamentary Papers.
The motion standing in my name refers to the recommendation of the First Report from the Select Committee on House of Commons (Services), Session 1983–84, which recommends that parliamentary papers should be based on the standard A4 size, similar to that now used for the Hansard format, from 1986–87 onwards. The report indicates that factors such as printing costs and likely improved printing services have weighed with the Select Committee. Its arguments are formidably displayed and I am sure that hon. Members will wish to take account of them.

Question put and agreed to.

HGV Driving Instructors

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Sainsbury.]

Mr. Ian Lloyd: I am obliged to the House for the opportunity to raise the case of my constituent, Mr. R. W. Anscombe. I shall be brief and relate the essential facts before proceeding to the arguments which arise from them.
Mr. Anscombe spent about 11 years as a regular soldier in the Life Guards regiment. He left that regiment at the end of his service career with the exemplary conduct rating on his discharge certificate. During that period he qualified as a driving instructor in three categories laid down by the Army. The first was as a private driving instructor, the second was as a vocational training instructor in heavy goods vehicle driving, and the third was as an inspector of public service vehicles. Mr. Anscombe gave that service largely in Germany, and he spent most of his time in the Army teaching people to drive in all the categories in which he was qualified. Therefore, he acquired very considerable and exceptional experience in that area.
On leaving the Army, quite naturally, Mr. Anscombe wished to start his own business and in so doing to use the expertise which he had acquired as a driving instructor, particularly as a heavy goods vehicle driving instructor. He had a queue of about 40 people who were waiting for him to do that and who were willing to take lessons from him. Naturally, he then sought advice as to how he should proceed to go about that business.
The advice that Mr. Anscombe received from the Departments involved was somewhat surprising. The most important aspect of it was, first, that he was not professionally qualified and, secondly, that he had to be employed as a trainee driving instructor before he could undertake that work, having spent nine or 10 years in instructing people to drive vehicles. He was then told that he would have to take the civilian course, at a cost to himself of about £70. That was to some extent redeemed by an offer made by the Department of Employment to subsidise his course to the tune of about £45.
Anyone looking at the situation would conclude immediately that there was something wrong. We are all familiar with the term "non-tariff barriers to trade", and I should like to suggest that this is a non-qualification barrier to employment—a similar category of non-qualification.
When my constituent came to see me and put the facts before me, I was, as my hon. Friend knows, very disturbed about them, and I approached the Department on 24 October, setting out the facts and confessing at the same time my astonishment and dismay.
In the reply that I received, the following points, in essence, were made. The first was that there was a register of so-called approved driving instructors which had been set up in 1964; that this had become compulsory in 1970 and that there was no way in which anyone could give driving instruction without being on the register; that it was now administered under the Transport Act 1982, and that that Act made it an offence, surprising as it may be, for anyone who had not been properly registered to give instruction; that the Act created no provision for a waiver;

and that there were about 29,000 authorised heavy goods vehicle driving instructors now operating in the United Kingdom under the Act.
The principal justifications which were given by the Minister in her first letter were that it was done on two essential grounds. The first was road safety, although that was not defined, and the second was consumer protection. I find those unconvincing for the following reasons.
First, the armed services as such set, are known to set and take pride in setting, the very highest standards in the instruction which they give to those whom they qualify in all three categories as driving instructors. Indeed, the Army runs a school of driving at Leconfield in Humberside where that instruction is given. It is my opinion that if one can instruct on five-ton trucks, tracked vehicles or tanks, one is qualified—if one has qualified at the Army school of driving at Leconfield—to teach on anything.
Secondly, the safety criterion is certainly met if the standards of training provided by the services are, as I believe they are and as they obviously should be, fully in accord with the standard of safety required.
Thirdly, I cannot see in any way how the consumer is not protected if the person giving the instruction has acquired his skills in an institution of this kind. In the case of my constituent, Mr. Anscombe—indeed, for those in a similar position who in future could be a considerable number—his experience was quite exceptional.
The armed services often, and quite deliberately, attract recruits because of the experience and qualifications that are attainable during their service. It is slightly disreputable if, as has happened in this case, those qualifications are not subsequently useable on leaving, unless the person concerned is prepared to go through the elaborate rigmarole of another long and arduous test.
The logical solution seemed to be perfectly simple and straightforward — if necessary to insist that the qualification, standards and experience obtained by anyone in any of the three services should be at least as high and comprehensive, and meet all the criteria that apparently—and properly so—are laid down in the civilian sector.
I suggested this to my hon. Friend in a letter on 25 November last year. Essentially, I suggested that there should be a waiver, if possible by intelligent administrative action, or if that proved impossible, as apparently it was, that there was a strong case for a modification to the Act.
In the reply that I received on 17 January this year, further justifications were advanced for the present situation. These were, first, a need to ensure uniform standards across the board and, secondly, that exemptions were considered at length during the Committee on the Bill in 1967. The only exemptions granted on that occasion were for police instructors and heavy goods vehicle instructors in Northern Ireland operating under another Act.
The reason for the reluctance was that the responsibility for maintaining standards would not rest within "our own" jurisdiction. That surprised me. Whose jurisdiction? "Our own" obviously means the Government's jurisdiction, but as well as having jurisdiction over civilian qualification, they have complete jurisdiction over the Ministry of Defence and anything that it does.
Therefore, the second argument that exemptions would
weaken the control we exercise over standards of individual applicants


simply does not and should not apply, because both categories come within the central and proper jurisdiction of the Government. In my view, that argument, while laudable, is in no sense relevant.
The suggestion that this would open a floodgate to driving instructors' "representative bodies"—I did not follow that at all—or driving instructors employed by "large commercial undertakings" was totally unconvincing, because neither of those organisations is in any sense controlled by the Government, whereas both the organisations to which I have referred are essentially controlled by them. Therefore, I do not accept the final argument that the differentiation was invidious. That is not so, because both official schemes and the services are in the public sector where standards can be set, maintained modified and co-ordinated without any real problems for those concerned.
The general position is that there is a substantial and continuing increase in the heavy goods vehicle population and, therefore, a substantial and continuing increase in the training that is required. Secondly, the armed forces attract and train men who become highly experienced and wholly and properly qualified instructors in the driving of heavy goods vehicles. Thirdly, I do not believe that they have anything to learn from anyone. They do not need to be tested, they should not have to pay to be tested and we should not have to incur a waste of public money in testing those who do not need to be tested.
It is clear that instructors in the armed forces should be able to offer their services as soon as they re-enter civilian life, as this is generally almost implicit in the contract that the services make with them, which states that in addition to their soldiering they will acquire useful civilian qualifications. A useful civilian qualification is one that is wholly up to standard, applicable and immediately acceptable in civilian life.
If civilian and service standards differ—I have no reason to believe that they do—there is no reason why they should not be brought into conformity. I suspect that service standards in this sector, as in so many others, are higher and not lower than those set in civilian life. I look to my hon. Friend for some imagination and flexibility, and an undertaking that, if it necessary, the Government will modify the 1967 Act as soon as a suitable modifying Bill is introduced, or by means of a clause in the next transport Bill. The present situation is indefensible and untenable and a public defence, if anything, of what I can describe only as a rather undesirable form of closed shop.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. David Mitchell): I have listened carefully to my hon. Friend the Member for Havant and Waterloo (Mr. Lloyd). I shall say a few words about the driving instructor registration scheme that is operated by my Department before turning to the correspondence that my hon. Friend has had with my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Transport. Notwithstanding that it is now later than three o'clock in the morning, my hon. Friend has vigorously outlined the problems faced by his constituent. I am sure that his constituent and others who are in the same group will be grateful to him for the care that he has devoted to their problems at such a late hour.
The scheme was set up on a voluntary basis in 1964 and made compulsory in 1970. Since then it has been necessary for those who give instruction in the driving of

motor cars for payment or reward—the professional driving instructors—to be approved and registered with the Department.
Applications seeking approval and registration are required under the provisions of part V of the Road Traffic Act 1972 to satisfy certain conditions. One of the conditions is that the would-be instructor must pass a qualifying examination. The examination comprises a written test of theoretical knowledge of driving matters, a practical test of the instructor's own driving, and a practical test of ability to instruct.
I am sure that we are all agreed that careful and considerate driving is essential to road safety. The professional driving instructor plays a crucial part in this, as it is he who lays the foundations of a lifetime of driving and must instil the right attitudes from the very start.
The Department constantly urges new drivers to take professional instruction and to learn to drive from an approved driving instructor. We have also been looking at the operation of the register of approved driving instructors and are making wide-ranging changes in the registration scheme covering entry standards, trainee licensing, the supervision of registered instructors and illegal instruction. We now have a new written examination that demands a greater theoretical knowledge of driving matters and a stiffer test of the instructor's own driving. We shall shortly be making changes in the practical test of ability to instruct that will call for a higher degree of teaching skill. We are also making tougher checks on registered instructors to match the higher standards we expect from newcomers.
There is also provision in the recently enacted Road Traffic (Driving Instruction) Act 1984 for tightening up the trainee driving instructor licensing scheme. That will require trainee instructors to pass the written and driving test parts of the qualifying examination for approval and registration before grant of licence. Trainees will thus be partly qualified and be of a higher calibre than hitherto.
The new Act will also require driving instructors to display their official identification documents in tuition cars. That will help new drivers to avoid unauthorised instructors and assist with the enforcement of the provisions on illegal instruction. We shall be implementing those changes as soon as the necessary administrative arrangements have been made.
All of that will, I am sure, lead to improvements in driving instruction and thus make a significant contribution to road safety. I mention this to illustrate the importance that the Department places on good instruction, and the effective operation of the driving instructor registration scheme.
I well appreciate the point that my hon. Friend has made about exemption from passing the qualifying examination for former members of the armed forces who have been engaged in driving instruction during their time in the services. There is no doubt that such persons are likely to be suited to take up a career in driving instruction. Some of them may have been trained as heavy goods vehicle driving instructors, and I hasten to add that there is no restriction on the giving of driving instruction for that type of vehicle other than that the instructor holds an HGV driving licence for the class of vehicle in which the tuition is given.
If I understand my hon. Friend correctly, he said that his constituent had difficulty not only in the general


instruction of car driving but with HGV instruction. I hope that my clarification of HGV driving instruction may be of some consolation to my hon. Friend and his constituent.

Mr. Ian Lloyd: I understand that it was made clear to my constituent that, although he was entitled to give instruction, he was not able to do so for gain. He cannot operate as a commercial instructor on HGVs.

Mr. Mitchell: This is a technical point, and I shall write to my hon. Friend about it. I assure him that there is no restriction on the giving of driving instruction for HGV vehicles other than that the instructor must hold an HGV driving licence for the class of vehicle on which he is to give instruction.
While, at first sight, it may seem anomalous that there is that difference, there is good reason for different treatment of HGV driver training compared with teaching the general public to drive motor cars. The HGV licence is a vocational licence and much of the training of HGV drivers is provided by organisations such as those set up under the auspices of the road transport industry training board. That ensures that appropriate standards are set for those giving instruction. Moreover, the road transport industry, as the main employer of HGV instructors, is in a good position to safeguard its interests by monitoring the performance of its instructors.
On the other hand, the general public are not so well placed to judge the quality of instruction and it is right in the interest of both road safety and consumer protection that motor car driving instruction should be subject to registration and supervision.
The requirements for those seeking registration as approved driving instructors in the giving of instruction in driving motor cars to pass the statutory qualifying examination are well established. The question of exemption for those possessing other qualifications or experience was carefully considered in Committee and by Ministers during the passage of the initial legislation which provided for compulsory registration; that is, the Road Traffic (Driving Instruction) Act 1967, subsequently consolidated in the Road Traffic Act 1972.
There were at that time many competing claims for exemption. In the event, these have been limited to the two to which my hon. Friend referred. They are police instructors in their official capacity giving tuition under local road safety schemes, and instructors registered under the separate Northern Ireland driving instructor registration scheme, which has requirements similar to our own scheme. These limited exemptions are provided for in the driving instructor legislation.
We have always resisted proposals for further exemptions. The main reason for this is that uniformity in entry standards is crucial and responsibility for maintaining such standards in these cases would then be outside our jurisdiction. My hon. Friend referred to our having control and said that, when they were in the forces,

they were within the control of Government. In this context, the Minister of State was referring to the Department of Transport's control of the standards which we seek to set and monitor.
There would always be a risk that in some cases the stringent standards on which we rightly insist would be affected, and would weaken our control over the qualifications of those seeking registration. Moreover, the necessary supervision of other testing bodies would make demands for additional staff that would be difficult to meet from present scarce resources.
It is, therefore, difficult to justify further exemptions, whether of former armed services driving instructors or others. Those who have passed courses run by driving instructors' representative bodies, and driving instructors employed by large commercial undertakings, would no doubt also seek special treatment if the exemptions were extended in any way. Differentiation between one group and another would be invidious.
I know that my hon. Friend has strong feelings on this matter and sees every reason for an exception to be made for former armed forces driving instructors. I am sorry if I have taken what may seem to him a rather hard line, but we are vitally concerned with the level of competence of every instructor. It is for that reason that we require them to demonstrate that they can meet the standards that we in the Department have laid down by passing the qualifying examination. I hope that what I have said will have helped persuade my hon. Friend that we are acting reasonably in this matter, particularly against the background of the recent steps taken to improve the driving instructor registration scheme.
Former armed forces driving instructors wishing to take up driving instruction in civilian life should be well placed to pass the qualifying examination for approval. The fees for the written and practical parts of the examination amount to £85, with a further £50 for initial registration, making a total of £135. As my hon. Friend pointed out, there are opportunities for obtaining some contribution towards that from the Department of Employment.
I do not think that that will be regarded as an excessive amount for a professional qualification of this kind. Moreover, there is no undue delay in dealing with applications and in arranging examination appointments. It is possible for candidates to complete all stages of the examination and obtain registration within about two months.
I hope that, in the light of my reply, my hon. Friend will feel that proper care and consideration has been given to the points that he has raised. I well understand his feelings, but we must recognise that where the Department of Transport has a responsibility for ensuring standards and for continuing to see that they are maintained by checks at intervals, it is right and proper that we should have our own examination system before letting instructors loose.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at fourteen minutes past Three o'clock am.